Limbrick v Limbrick [2023] EWHC 1959 (Ch) (23 June 2023)

Limbrick v Limbrick [2023] EWHC 1959 (Ch) (23 June 2023)

The claimant failed to prove that the arbitration agreement had become inoperative or incapable of being performed. There was no clear agreement between the parties to abandon arbitration, and the evidence showed only a reluctance to proceed with a particular arbitrator, not with arbitration itself. Therefore, the stay of proceedings should be re-imposed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1959 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Jolyon Thomas Roy Limbrick; Defendant: Thomas Stephen Roy Limbrick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2023
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Application to Set Aside Order Lifting Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Application granted; stay of proceedings re-imposed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration Agreement, Section 9 Arbitration Act 1996, Proprietary Estoppel, Partnership Dissolution, Jurisdiction to Vary or Revoke Orders, Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses
Civil Procedure Arbitration Partnership Law Property Law Stay of Proceedings Arbitration Agreement Section 9 Arbitration Act 1996 Proprietary Estoppel +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jolyon Thomas Roy Limbrick

Claimant

Thomas Stephen Roy Limbrick

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Application to Set Aside Order Lifting Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of proceedings imposed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 should be lifted
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration agreement had become inoperative or incapable of being performed under Section 9(4)
  3. 3 Whether there was an agreement between the parties to abandon arbitration and proceed in court

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove that the arbitration agreement had become inoperative or incapable of being performed. There was no clear agreement between the parties to abandon arbitration, and the evidence showed only a reluctance to proceed with a particular arbitrator, not with arbitration itself. Therefore, the stay of proceedings should be re-imposed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Application granted; stay of proceedings re-imposed.

Orders

  • The order lifting the stay of proceedings is set aside; the stay is re-imposed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Other orders made by Master Brightwell, including transfer to Bristol and permission to amend pleadings, remain undisturbed.