Helice Leasing SAS v PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) TbK (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 99 (Comm) (20 January 2021)

Helice Leasing SAS v PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) TbK (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 99 (Comm) (20 January 2021)

Service at the Hammersmith address was valid as it was the Defendant's publicly recorded UK establishment at the time of service; alternatively, any defect would be cured by retrospective order. The Lease, properly construed, requires disputes to be referred to arbitration, and the lessor does not have a unilateral right to litigate in court upon an Event of Default. There is a dispute capable of being referred to arbitration even if the Defendant has not advanced a substantive defence. Accordingly, the proceedings are stayed under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 99 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: HELICE LEASING S. A. S; Defendant: PT GARUDA INDONESIA (PERSERO) TbK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Application (jurisdiction/service/stay)
Outcome
Proceedings stayed in favour of arbitration under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Agreements, Forum Non Conveniens, Retrospective Service, Interpretation of Contracts
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Service of Process Jurisdiction Arbitration Agreements Forum Non Conveniens Retrospective Service +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HELICE LEASING S. A. S

Claimant

PT GARUDA INDONESIA (PERSERO) TbK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Application (jurisdiction/service/stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form at the Hammersmith address was valid under CPR r.6.9(2)(7)
  2. 2 Whether retrospective permission to serve at an alternative place, extend time, or dispense with service should be granted
  3. 3 Whether proceedings should be stayed under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 in favour of arbitration under the Lease

Ratio Decidendi

Service at the Hammersmith address was valid as it was the Defendant's publicly recorded UK establishment at the time of service; alternatively, any defect would be cured by retrospective order. The Lease, properly construed, requires disputes to be referred to arbitration, and the lessor does not have a unilateral right to litigate in court upon an Event of Default. There is a dispute capable of being referred to arbitration even if the Defendant has not advanced a substantive defence. Accordingly, the proceedings are stayed under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed in favour of arbitration under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996.

Orders

  • Defendant's application to set aside service dismissed.
  • Claimant's alternative applications for retrospective service, extension of time, or dispensing with service granted in the alternative (if required).