UK: Chancery case highlights lack of clarity surrounding staying proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Featured In: Volume 5 - Issue 3 (Vol. 5 Iss. 3)
Justin Mort, a barrister at Keating Chambers in London specialising in construction law and international arbitration, reports on a recent decision of the Chancery Division in London that draws attention to the English law’s inconsistency regarding the circumstances when a party loses its right to a mandatory stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Archive Subscription required to view this article
This content can only be accessed by GCR subscribers with archive access.
A subscription with archive access includes 6 issues of the journal, The GAR100 and the International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration and full access to all current print & online content.
If you are a GAR subscriber, please login to access this content:



Comments
You must Subscribe or Log In to make comments.
Comment Terms & Conditions
Back to Volume 5 - Issue 3 (Vol. 5 Iss. 3)
Back to top