Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Corus UK Ltd v Terex-Demag Ltd

Corus UK Ltd v Terex-Demag Ltd 14 March 2005 [2005] ArbLR 18 Arbitration application--Costs--Legal proceedings commenced for breach of contract containing arbitration agreement--Legal proceedings withdrawn in face of application to stay--Stay application not brought promptly or within 28-day deadline in pre-action protocol--High Court ordering no costs of aborted legal proceedings against withdrawing party--Whether to grant permission to appeal to Court of Appeal (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 No costs for late application to stay legal proceedings Corus commenced proceedings against Terex-Demag for breach of contract. Terex requested details of the breaches and documents, including a copy of the contract. Questions arose as to whether a settlement agreement between the parties covered the matters in dispute and the parties agreed that no further action would be taken pending further instructions. The fact that there was an arbitration clause in the contract did not come to Terex's attention until several months later when particulars of claim were served with an appendix containing all the conditions. A month later, Terex applied for a stay of the proceedings in favour of the arbitration agreement. Corus agreed immediately to the stay. Terex claimed its costs of the aborted legal proceedings. Corus contended that since the application for a stay http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Corus UK Ltd v Terex-Demag Ltd

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2005 (1) – Jan 1, 2005

Corus UK Ltd v Terex-Demag Ltd

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2005 (1) – Jan 1, 2005

Abstract

14 March 2005 [2005] ArbLR 18 Arbitration application--Costs--Legal proceedings commenced for breach of contract containing arbitration agreement--Legal proceedings withdrawn in face of application to stay--Stay application not brought promptly or within 28-day deadline in pre-action protocol--High Court ordering no costs of aborted legal proceedings against withdrawing party--Whether to grant permission to appeal to Court of Appeal (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 No costs for late application to stay legal proceedings Corus commenced proceedings against Terex-Demag for breach of contract. Terex requested details of the breaches and documents, including a copy of the contract. Questions arose as to whether a settlement agreement between the parties covered the matters in dispute and the parties agreed that no further action would be taken pending further instructions. The fact that there was an arbitration clause in the contract did not come to Terex's attention until several months later when particulars of claim were served with an appendix containing all the conditions. A month later, Terex applied for a stay of the proceedings in favour of the arbitration agreement. Corus agreed immediately to the stay. Terex claimed its costs of the aborted legal proceedings. Corus contended that since the application for a stay

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/corus-uk-ltd-v-terex-demag-ltd-1YFNfh4Ul8
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2009
Subject
Judgments
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2005.1.267
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

14 March 2005 [2005] ArbLR 18 Arbitration application--Costs--Legal proceedings commenced for breach of contract containing arbitration agreement--Legal proceedings withdrawn in face of application to stay--Stay application not brought promptly or within 28-day deadline in pre-action protocol--High Court ordering no costs of aborted legal proceedings against withdrawing party--Whether to grant permission to appeal to Court of Appeal (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 No costs for late application to stay legal proceedings Corus commenced proceedings against Terex-Demag for breach of contract. Terex requested details of the breaches and documents, including a copy of the contract. Questions arose as to whether a settlement agreement between the parties covered the matters in dispute and the parties agreed that no further action would be taken pending further instructions. The fact that there was an arbitration clause in the contract did not come to Terex's attention until several months later when particulars of claim were served with an appendix containing all the conditions. A month later, Terex applied for a stay of the proceedings in favour of the arbitration agreement. Corus agreed immediately to the stay. Terex claimed its costs of the aborted legal proceedings. Corus contended that since the application for a stay

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.