British Telecommunications Plc v SAE Group Inc [2009] EWHC 252 (TCC) (18 February 2009)

British Telecommunications Plc v SAE Group Inc [2009] EWHC 252 (TCC) (18 February 2009)

There was no binding arbitration agreement between the parties; Clause 17 of Appendix 4 was not agreed and, in any event, provided for expert determination, not arbitration. The clause would not have covered the dispute regarding payment following contract termination. The court had jurisdiction to grant the declarations sought by BT under its inherent powers.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 252 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: British Telecommunications PLC; Defendant: SAE Group INC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (alternatively, Arbitration Claim) / Judgment After Hearing on Declarations Regarding Arbitration Agreement
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of BT; no arbitration agreement exists and the purported arbitration proceedings are null and void.
Legal Topics
Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Expert Determination Vs Arbitration, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Declaratory Relief
Contract Law Arbitration Existence of Arbitration Agreement Expert Determination Vs Arbitration Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Declaratory Relief

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Telecommunications PLC

Claimant

SAE Group INC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (alternatively, Arbitration Claim) / Judgment After Hearing on Declarations Regarding Arbitration Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract contains a binding arbitration agreement covering the dispute
  2. 2 Whether Clause 17 of Appendix 4 is an arbitration clause or an expert determination clause
  3. 3 Whether the draft clause applies to the dispute regarding payment following contract termination

Ratio Decidendi

There was no binding arbitration agreement between the parties; Clause 17 of Appendix 4 was not agreed and, in any event, provided for expert determination, not arbitration. The clause would not have covered the dispute regarding payment following contract termination. The court had jurisdiction to grant the declarations sought by BT under its inherent powers.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of BT; no arbitration agreement exists and the purported arbitration proceedings are null and void.

Orders

  • The contract does not contain any agreement to arbitrate or to expert/third party determination.
  • Draft terms in Appendix 4 of Schedule 2 are of no effect.