Read the full judgment text of HCCT000046/1994 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT judgment was delivered on 27 January 1995 before The Hon. Mr. Justice Leonard in Chambers.
Arbitration — UNCITRAL Model Law — Appointment of arbitrator — Agency — Costs. The Plaintiff, a Russian private company, sought appointment of an arbitrator under Art 11(3)(a) of the UNCITRAL Model Law for disputes arising from two contracts with the 1st Defendant for purchase of television sets and microwave ovens. The Plaintiff alleged the 1st Defendant acted as agent for 2nd Defendant. The Court found prima facie evidence of disputes with the 1st Defendant warranting appointment of arbitrator, and found it arguable that the 2nd Defendant should be a party by agency, leaving jurisdiction challenges to the arbitral tribunal. Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis against the 1st Defendant, which had no good basis to oppose, and on a normal basis against the 2nd Defendant, which was entitled to oppose. Mr. Robin Peard was appointed sole arbitrator for both disputes.
Legal issues: Appointment of arbitrator under UNCITRAL Model Law · Costs award in application for appointment of arbitrator
Outcome: Appointment of Mr. Robin Peard as sole arbitrator for disputes; costs awarded to Plaintiff on indemnity basis against 1st Defendant and on normal basis against 2nd Defendant.