SCENIC CIRCLE (ROTORUA) LIMITED V PRINCES GATE HOTELS LIMITED AND PRINCES GATE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ANOR HC ROT CIV 2006-463-658

SCENIC CIRCLE (ROTORUA) LIMITED V PRINCES GATE HOTELS LIMITED AND PRINCES GATE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ANOR HC ROT CIV 2006-463-658

Clause 22 must be read as making the arbitral process commence only when the arbitrator's appointment was secured (either by the President or by a definitive agreement between parties); the parties never unequivocally appointed or confirmed an arbitrator or agreed the scope; therefore the arbitration never commenced, the three month limitation never began to run, Article 8(1) requires a stay and the High Court directed the parties to arbitrate in accordance with the agreement dated 21 May 2001.

Citation
openlaw-5fa91f7a_47fc_4890_9e9c_7e949c41c448.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Scenic Circle (Rotorua) Limited; First Defendant/first Applicant: Princes Gate Hotels Limited; First Defendant/first Applicant: Princes Gate Holdings Limited; Second Defendant/second Applicant: Brett John Marvelly
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Contract Arbitration Dispute / Application for Stay and Referral to Arbitration
Outcome
Application for stay granted; proceedings stayed and parties directed to arbitrate in terms of the 21 May 2001 agreement; costs awarded to Princes Gate
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause Interpretation, Stay of Proceedings, Appointment of Arbitrator, Commencement of Arbitral Proceedings, Jurisdiction to Stay, Forum Non Conveniens, Costs
Arbitration Contract Civil Procedure Commercial Law Consumer Law Arbitration Clause Interpretation Stay of Proceedings Appointment of Arbitrator +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scenic Circle (Rotorua) Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Princes Gate Hotels Limited

First Defendant/first Applicant

Princes Gate Holdings Limited

First Defendant/first Applicant

Brett John Marvelly

Second Defendant/second Applicant

Procedural Posture

Contract Arbitration Dispute / Application for Stay and Referral to Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral process under clause 22 had commenced
  2. 2 Proper construction of clause 22 (appointment by President vs agreement between parties)
  3. 3 Whether the three month period in clause 22 began to run

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 22 must be read as making the arbitral process commence only when the arbitrator's appointment was secured (either by the President or by a definitive agreement between parties); the parties never unequivocally appointed or confirmed an arbitrator or agreed the scope; therefore the arbitration never commenced, the three month limitation never began to run, Article 8(1) requires a stay and the High Court directed the parties to arbitrate in accordance with the agreement dated 21 May 2001.

Court Disposition

Application for stay granted; proceedings stayed and parties directed to arbitrate in terms of the 21 May 2001 agreement; costs awarded to Princes Gate

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed and parties referred to arbitration in terms of the agreement dated 21 May 2001 (clause 22)
  • Costs to Princes Gate at scale 2B and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar