FRANEK JAN SODZAWICZNY v SIMON JOHN MCNALLY

FRANEK JAN SODZAWICZNY v SIMON JOHN MCNALLY

The court granted Mr McNally's application to set aside the enforcement order as to Declaration (1) because there was no utility in court enforcement of a declaration already binding between the parties. The application was refused as to Declaration (2) and the Transfer Order because these were clear, workable, and of utility, did not improperly affect third party rights, and the underlying dispute was arbitrable and enforceable under English law.

Parties
Claimant: Franek Jan Sodzawiczny; Defendant: Simon John McNally
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Enforcement Order Under S.66 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Discretionary Relief, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Public Policy and Arbitrability, Third Party Rights in Enforcement
Arbitration Commercial Law Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Discretionary Relief Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Public Policy and Arbitrability Third Party Rights in Enforcement

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franek Jan Sodzawiczny

Claimant

Simon John McNally

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Enforcement Order Under S.66 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award relating to foreign property is arbitrable and enforceable under s.66 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the declarations and transfer order in the award are sufficiently clear and workable for enforcement
  3. 3 Whether enforcement would improperly affect third party rights or offend public policy

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted Mr McNally's application to set aside the enforcement order as to Declaration (1) because there was no utility in court enforcement of a declaration already binding between the parties. The application was refused as to Declaration (2) and the Transfer Order because these were clear, workable, and of utility, did not improperly affect third party rights, and the underlying dispute was arbitrable and enforceable under English law.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Cockerill Order set aside as to Declaration (1)
  • Cockerill Order upheld as to Declaration (2) and the Transfer Order