Read the full judgment text of HCCT000581/1993 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT judgment was delivered on 15 November 1993 before The Hon. Mr. Justice Kaplan in Chambers.
Arbitration — domestic — stay of proceedings under s.6 Arbitration Ordinance — whether filing affidavits in opposition to a summons under RSC Ord. 14 before issuing an application for stay constitutes taking a step in the action — holding that filing such affidavits without contemporaneous stay application or reference to arbitration constitutes a step invoking court jurisdiction — application for stay disentitled. The case involved a Contract of Sale containing an arbitration clause and letters of guarantee signed by defendants. The court confirmed the claim based on guarantee fell within the arbitration clause of the contract though the guarantee itself lacked an arbitration clause. Drawing on authorities including Pitchers Ltd., Turner and Goudy and Euro-American Insurance, the court emphasized that filing affidavits opposing summary judgment, and appearing to adjourn the hearing before filing the stay summons, amounted to taking a step in the action. The defendant’s conduct demonstrated election to abandon arbitration rights. The stay application was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds without addressing discretionary matters.
Legal issues: Whether filing affidavits in opposition to O.14 summons constitutes a step in the action under s.6 Arbitration Ordinance · Applicability of arbitration clause to guarantee claim
Outcome: The summons for a stay under s.6 Arbitration Ordinance was dismissed on the jurisdictional ground that the 1st defendant had taken a step in the action and was thus disentitled from applying for a stay.