Consolidated Resources Armenia -v- Global Gold and Others [2014] JRC 169 (11 September 2014)

Consolidated Resources Armenia -v- Global Gold and Others [2014] JRC 169 (11 September 2014)

There is a binding arbitration agreement covering the unfair prejudice claims, but because the defendants have raised concrete and specific allegations of fraud against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff (the party accused) objects to private arbitration, the court exercises its discretion under Article 27 of the Arbitration (Jersey) Law 1998 to refuse a stay and orders that the arbitration agreement cease to have effect for these disputes.

Citation
[2014] JRC 169
Parties
Plaintiff: Consolidated Resources Armenia; Third Defendant: Global Gold Corporation; Second Defendant: Mr Van Krikorian; First Defendant: Joint Venture Company (unnamed Jersey entity)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Application for stay refused
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement, Jurisdiction, Unfair Prejudice, Winding Up, Fraud Allegations, Shareholder Disputes
Company Law Arbitration Contract Law Arbitration Agreement Jurisdiction Unfair Prejudice Winding Up Fraud Allegations +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consolidated Resources Armenia

Plaintiff

Global Gold Corporation

Third Defendant

Mr Van Krikorian

Second Defendant

Joint Venture Company (unnamed Jersey entity)

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a binding arbitration agreement covering the disputes in question
  2. 2 Whether the claims (including unfair prejudice and winding up) are arbitrable
  3. 3 Whether allegations of fraud preclude a stay for arbitration under Jersey law

Ratio Decidendi

There is a binding arbitration agreement covering the unfair prejudice claims, but because the defendants have raised concrete and specific allegations of fraud against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff (the party accused) objects to private arbitration, the court exercises its discretion under Article 27 of the Arbitration (Jersey) Law 1998 to refuse a stay and orders that the arbitration agreement cease to have effect for these disputes.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused

Orders

  • Arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect in relation to these disputes
  • Proceedings to continue in Jersey court