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

Learn More →

ET Plus SA and Ors v Welter and Ors

ET Plus SA and Ors v Welter and Ors 7 November 2005 Gross J Commercial Court [2005] EWHC 2115 [2005] ArbLR 24 Arbitration agreement--Interpretation--Claims in contract and tort-- Whether presumption in favour of `one-stop adjudication' (yes)--Parties failing to adopt `standard' wordings--Whether parties intended a narrower scope of arbitration agreement (no) Arbitration agreement--Enforcement--Stay--Multiple parties--Parallel proceedings--Whether claims within scope of arbitration agreement (yes)-- Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 Arbitration proceedings--Parallel proceedings--Claims in court proceedings related to ongoing arbitration--Whether to stay legal proceedings pending resolution in scope of arbitration agreement (yes)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 Broad interpretation of scope of arbitration agreement Eurotunnel sold tickets for freight transport directly and through the sixth and seventh claimants. In 2002, these claimants formed Eurotunnel Plus under which the sixth and seventh claimants were to sell tickets and enjoy exclusivity in Luxembourg and Italy. The second to fifth claimants were set up as national subsidiaries in England, the Netherlands, France, and Spain. ET Plus was established in Luxembourg as the joint venture vehicle of the sixth and seventh claimants. ET Plus entered into a new contract with Eurotunnel (through the eighth and ninth defendants). ET Plus obtained exclusive marketing rights except in respect of clients with which Eurotunnel maintained direct links. The contract http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

ET Plus SA and Ors v Welter and Ors

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

ET Plus SA and Ors v Welter and Ors

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

Abstract

7 November 2005 Gross J Commercial Court [2005] EWHC 2115 [2005] ArbLR 24 Arbitration agreement--Interpretation--Claims in contract and tort-- Whether presumption in favour of `one-stop adjudication' (yes)--Parties failing to adopt `standard' wordings--Whether parties intended a narrower scope of arbitration agreement (no) Arbitration agreement--Enforcement--Stay--Multiple parties--Parallel proceedings--Whether claims within scope of arbitration agreement (yes)-- Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 Arbitration proceedings--Parallel proceedings--Claims in court proceedings related to ongoing arbitration--Whether to stay legal proceedings pending resolution in scope of arbitration agreement (yes)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 Broad interpretation of scope of arbitration agreement Eurotunnel sold tickets for freight transport directly and through the sixth and seventh claimants. In 2002, these claimants formed Eurotunnel Plus under which the sixth and seventh claimants were to sell tickets and enjoy exclusivity in Luxembourg and Italy. The second to fifth claimants were set up as national subsidiaries in England, the Netherlands, France, and Spain. ET Plus was established in Luxembourg as the joint venture vehicle of the sixth and seventh claimants. ET Plus entered into a new contract with Eurotunnel (through the eighth and ninth defendants). ET Plus obtained exclusive marketing rights except in respect of clients with which Eurotunnel maintained direct links. The contract

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/et-plus-sa-and-ors-v-welter-and-ors-tsXx7Q5ukY

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2009
Subject
Judgments
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2005.1.353
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

7 November 2005 Gross J Commercial Court [2005] EWHC 2115 [2005] ArbLR 24 Arbitration agreement--Interpretation--Claims in contract and tort-- Whether presumption in favour of `one-stop adjudication' (yes)--Parties failing to adopt `standard' wordings--Whether parties intended a narrower scope of arbitration agreement (no) Arbitration agreement--Enforcement--Stay--Multiple parties--Parallel proceedings--Whether claims within scope of arbitration agreement (yes)-- Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 Arbitration proceedings--Parallel proceedings--Claims in court proceedings related to ongoing arbitration--Whether to stay legal proceedings pending resolution in scope of arbitration agreement (yes)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 Broad interpretation of scope of arbitration agreement Eurotunnel sold tickets for freight transport directly and through the sixth and seventh claimants. In 2002, these claimants formed Eurotunnel Plus under which the sixth and seventh claimants were to sell tickets and enjoy exclusivity in Luxembourg and Italy. The second to fifth claimants were set up as national subsidiaries in England, the Netherlands, France, and Spain. ET Plus was established in Luxembourg as the joint venture vehicle of the sixth and seventh claimants. ET Plus entered into a new contract with Eurotunnel (through the eighth and ninth defendants). ET Plus obtained exclusive marketing rights except in respect of clients with which Eurotunnel maintained direct links. The contract

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.