BDMS Ltd v Rafael Advanced Defence Systems [2014] EWHC 451 (Comm) (26 February 2014)

BDMS Ltd v Rafael Advanced Defence Systems [2014] EWHC 451 (Comm) (26 February 2014)

The defendant's refusal to pay its share of the advance on arbitration costs was not a repudiatory breach of the arbitration agreement, nor did it render the agreement inoperative, as the claimant had means under the ICC Rules to proceed with arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration agreement remains operative and a stay of court proceedings must be granted under s.9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 451 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: BDMS LIMITED; Defendant: RAFAEL ADVANCED DEFENCE SYSTEMS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.9 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Stay of proceedings granted
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement, Stay of Proceedings, Repudiatory Breach, Jurisdiction, Advance on Costs
Arbitration Commercial Law Arbitration Agreement Stay of Proceedings Repudiatory Breach Jurisdiction Advance on Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BDMS LIMITED

Claimant

RAFAEL ADVANCED DEFENCE SYSTEMS

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.9 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's refusal to pay its share of the advance on arbitration costs constituted a repudiatory breach of the arbitration agreement
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration agreement was thereby rendered 'inoperative' under s.9(4) Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether a stay of court proceedings should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's refusal to pay its share of the advance on arbitration costs was not a repudiatory breach of the arbitration agreement, nor did it render the agreement inoperative, as the claimant had means under the ICC Rules to proceed with arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration agreement remains operative and a stay of court proceedings must be granted under s.9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings granted

Orders

  • Proceedings in the High Court stayed under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996