Doyle v Philoe (CS 110/2016) [2018] SCSC 8107 (11 March 2018)

Doyle v Philoe (CS 110/2016) [2018] SCSC 8107 (11 March 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff had a valid Power of Attorney and that the arbitration clause did not apply since the dispute was not about quality of work or amount payable, but about refund after full payment and breach of contract. Thus, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8107
Parties
Plaintiff: Christine Doyle; Defendant: Jim Philoe
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
11 March 2018
Case Number
CS 110/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Plea in Limine
Outcome
Plea in limine dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Clauses, Agency
Source Language
english
Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Jurisdiction Arbitration Clauses Agency

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Doyle

Plaintiff

Jim Philoe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Plea in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff had proper legal representation via Power of Attorney
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in light of the arbitration clause in the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had a valid Power of Attorney and that the arbitration clause did not apply since the dispute was not about quality of work or amount payable, but about refund after full payment and breach of contract. Thus, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Plea in limine dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to file defence