State A v Party B & Anor [2019] EWHC 799 (Comm) (29 January 2019)

State A v Party B & Anor [2019] EWHC 799 (Comm) (29 January 2019)

Given the colossal delay and the prejudice to respondents, the fresh evidence (Mr F Letter) is not sufficiently transformational to justify reopening the jurisdiction issue; the application for extension of time is refused.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 799 (Comm)
Parties
Applicant: State A; Respondent: Party B; Respondent: Party C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Related Application / Application for Extension of Time Under Ss.70(3) and 80(5) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Jurisdiction Challenge, Fresh Evidence, Finality of Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Extension of Time Jurisdiction Challenge Fresh Evidence Finality of Awards

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State A

Applicant

Party B

Respondent

Party C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Related Application / Application for Extension of Time Under Ss.70(3) and 80(5) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time should be granted for a s.67 jurisdiction challenge after a 'colossal' delay
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence (the Mr F Letter) is sufficiently transformational to justify reopening the jurisdiction issue

Ratio Decidendi

Given the colossal delay and the prejudice to respondents, the fresh evidence (Mr F Letter) is not sufficiently transformational to justify reopening the jurisdiction issue; the application for extension of time is refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time under ss.70(3) and 80(5) Arbitration Act 1996 refused