Taylor Woodrow Construction v RMD Kwikform Ltd

Taylor Woodrow Construction v RMD Kwikform Ltd

Clause 26.1 does not constitute an agreement as to when arbitral proceedings are commenced for purposes of the Arbitration Act 1996 or Limitation Acts; the letter of 17 January 2003 was not sufficient notice to commence arbitration under Section 14(4) as it did not objectively indicate an intention to refer the dispute to arbitration or request agreement to appoint an arbitrator.

Parties
Claimant: Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited; Defendant: RMD Kwikform Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Judgment on Preliminary Points of Law and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed; appointment of arbitrator declared invalid.
Legal Topics
Commencement of Arbitral Proceedings, Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses, Limitation Periods
Arbitration Construction Law Commencement of Arbitral Proceedings Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses Limitation Periods

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 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 / Judgment on Preliminary Points of Law and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 26.1 does not constitute an agreement as to when arbitral proceedings are commenced for purposes of the Arbitration Act 1996 or Limitation Acts; the letter of 17 January 2003 was not sufficient notice to commence arbitration under Section 14(4) as it did not objectively indicate an intention to refer the dispute to arbitration or request agreement to appoint an arbitrator.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; appointment of arbitrator declared invalid.

Orders

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