Taylor Woodrow Construction v RMD Kwikform Ltd [2008] EWHC 825 (TCC) (17 April 2008)

Taylor Woodrow Construction v RMD Kwikform Ltd [2008] EWHC 825 (TCC) (17 April 2008)

Clause 26.1 does not amount to an agreement as to when arbitral proceedings are to be regarded as commenced for the purposes of s.14(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996; s.14(4) applies. The letter of 17 January 2003 was not objectively clear as a notice referring the dispute to arbitration or requiring appointment of an arbitrator and was therefore insufficient to commence arbitration proceedings.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 825 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited; Defendant: RMD Kwikform Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (preliminary Issues) / Judgment on Preliminary Point of Law and Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act 1996, Ss. 32 and 45
Outcome
Application dismissed; appointment of arbitrator declared invalid.
Legal Topics
Commencement of Arbitral Proceedings, Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses, Limitation Periods in Arbitration, Appointment of Arbitrators
Arbitration Construction Law Commencement of Arbitral Proceedings Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses Limitation Periods in Arbitration Appointment of Arbitrators

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited

Claimant

RMD Kwikform Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (preliminary Issues) / Judgment on Preliminary Point of Law and Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act 1996, Ss. 32 and 45

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 26.1 of the sub-contract constitutes an agreement as to when arbitral proceedings are to be regarded as commenced for the purposes of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Limitation Acts
  2. 2 Whether the letter of 17 January 2003 was sufficient to commence arbitration under s.14 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 26.1 does not amount to an agreement as to when arbitral proceedings are to be regarded as commenced for the purposes of s.14(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996; s.14(4) applies. The letter of 17 January 2003 was not objectively clear as a notice referring the dispute to arbitration or requiring appointment of an arbitrator and was therefore insufficient to commence arbitration proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; appointment of arbitrator declared invalid.

Orders

  • Declaration that the letter of 17 January 2003 was not sufficient to commence arbitration proceedings under s.14 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Declaration that the appointment of Dr Standinger as arbitrator was not valid.