Makarenko v CIS [2001] JRC 141A (29 June 2001)

Makarenko v CIS [2001] JRC 141A (29 June 2001)

The arbitration clause in question is drafted in clear terms to include disputes as to the existence or validity of the contract, including fraud. There is no sufficient or particularised allegation of fraud in the pleadings. Therefore, the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement, and the proceedings must be stayed in favour of arbitration.

Citation
[2001] JRC 141A
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (not named); Defendant: Defendant (not named)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Stay of proceedings ordered
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement Scope, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Pleading Standards for Fraud
Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Agreement Scope Fraudulent Misrepresentation Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Pleading Standards for Fraud

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

Parties

Plaintiff (not named)

Plaintiff

Defendant (not named)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration clause covers disputes as to the existence or validity of the contract, including fraud
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be stayed in favour of arbitration under Article 6 of the Arbitration (Jersey) Law 1998
  3. 3 Whether the court should refuse a stay under Article 28(2) due to allegations of fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitration clause in question is drafted in clear terms to include disputes as to the existence or validity of the contract, including fraud. There is no sufficient or particularised allegation of fraud in the pleadings. Therefore, the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement, and the proceedings must be stayed in favour of arbitration.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings ordered

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed pending arbitration under clause 8.2 of the Agreement
  • No exercise of discretion to refuse stay under Article 28(2)