Arbitration Law Monthly

The lengthy judgment of Teare J in UMS Holdings Ltd and Others v Great Station Properties SA and Another [2017] EWHC 2398 (Comm) sets out in a great deal of detail the limits of serious irregularity challenges under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. It might be thought somewhat concerning to see that a challenge that the court regarded as misconceived was resolved only after a four-day hearing and a judgment stretching to 144 paragraphs.

Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 requires the English court to stay its proceedings if the dispute coming before it is "in relation to a matter" falling within the parties agreement to arbitrate. The meaning of this phrase has received very little attention in England, a matter put right by the lengthy discussion of Blair J in Autoridad del Canal de Panam¡ v Sacyr SA [2017] EWHC 2228 (Comm).

The English courts have accepted that a court has inherent jurisdiction to stay its own proceedings where the action depends upon the outcome of an arbitration between either the same or different parties. An obvious example is where a creditor brings judicial proceedings against the guarantor in advance of the determination of the primary debtor’s liability in ongoing arbitration proceedings.

Under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 the High Court may exercise its ordinary powers in support of arbitration where the arbitrators themselves cannot act. In Dainford Navigation Inc v PDVSA Petroleo SA (The Moscow Stars) [2017] EWHC 2150 (Comm) Males J confirmed that the legislation confers jurisdiction upon the court to order a sale of cargo subject to a lien in an arbitration for the recovery of hire charges.