21 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read – 84 of 99 Insights
English Courts cannot compel a non-party to an arbitral agreement to give evidence in support of arbitration. That is the impact of the Commercial Court's decision in AB v CDE handed down earlier this month.
Until now, many practitioners will have understood the Court to have that power, one which arises out of the wording of s.44(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. However, the Court held that its powers under s.44 only extend to parties to the arbitration agreement, and it is only those parties (and not third parties) which it can compel to give evidence.
Some may say this is a surprising decision. The English courts have traditionally favoured the arbitral process and engaged so as to promote its efficiency. Where the arbitral tools are insufficient to dispense justice effectively the courts have powers to help the process along. If those courts are unable to compel third parties to the arbitration to give evidence, then that arguably leads to a less efficient process. While there are related powers under s.43, those are less extensive than the powers envisaged by s.44.
Then there is the question of what is meant by a party to an arbitration agreement, and where the line gets drawn. This is particularly so where corporate parties are concerned. Who – in the context of a corporate – is to be regarded as a party to the agreement for the purpose of giving witness evidence? Officers? Employees? Shareholders?
While the decision is well reasoned, there may be doubt as to whether it is the right outcome. This may be one which needs revisiting.
Note: In April 2020, the English Court of Appeal reversed this judgement, holding that the powers under s.44 of the Arbitration Act, at least in so far as they apply to the taking of witness evidence, do extend to third parties. Accordingly, the Court ordered that evidence be taken from the third party by way of deposition before an examiner. The Court was keen to emphasise that the decision was only in relation to the taking of evidence and did not extend more broadly to the interpretation of other aspects of s.44 and their applicability to third parties.
6 December 2024
14 November 2024
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
15 October 2024
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
14 December 2023
13 December 2023
23 October 2023
by Multiple authors
17 October 2023
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
21 July 2023
10 July 2023
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
8 March 2023
2 March 2023
14 February 2023
13 February 2023
8 February 2023
19 January 2023
3 October 2022
22 September 2022
by Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
25 July 2022
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
29 July 2022
17 June 2022
13 June 2022
26 May 2022
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
4 April 2022
5 April 2022
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
21 September 2021
by Multiple authors
13 September 2021
6 September 2021
2 August 2021
21 July 2021
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
26 May 2021
5 May 2021
21 April 2021
31 March 2021
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
24 February 2021
20 January 2021
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
23 November 2020
16 October 2020
23 September 2020
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
15 April 2020
27 April 2020
by Multiple authors
21 April 2020
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
26 February 2020
21 February 2020
2 June 2020
16 June 2020
9 July 2020
21 July 2020
3 December 2021
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
8 October 2021
10 January 2022
20 January 2022
22 March 2022
7 April 2022