English Commercial Court enforces obligation to resolve disputes by friendly discussion prior to arbitration
By Chris Kidd
Multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses whereby parties are required to mediate prior to arbitration or litigation have been common currency for some time and the English courts have previously grappled with the extent to which such clauses are little more than unenforceable agreements to negotiate as a result of the decision in Walford v Miles (which held that an agreement by the owner of a business to terminate negotiations to sell the business to a third party in exchange for the claimant’s promise to continue negotiations to buy the business lacked the necessary certainty and was unenforceable), and mediation is a supervised negotiation. How would the court police such an agreement?
That line of thinking underpinned a number of cases. In Cable & Wireless v IBM, Colman J commented that an obligation to attempt in good faith to settle a dispute would have been unenforceable because of an obvious lack of certainty, but the contractual obligation to attempt in good faith to settle a dispute through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) was sufficiently certain to be enforced because the procedure to be followed was that recommended by CEDR.
In similar vein in Holloway v Chancery Mead Ltd, Ramsey J reviewed authorities concerning the enforceability of ADR agreements and agreements to agree concluding that to be enforceable they had to be sufficiently certain, administrative procedures for selecting a party to resolve the dispute should be defined and a process to be followed should be defined or sufficiently certain…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Ince & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
The Court of Appeal has confirmed the meaning of the expression “in-transit loss” in a voyage charter party in the Trafigura Beheer case.
A recent Commercial Court decision considered the position when a contract provides for the law of one jurisdiction to be applicable, but for the arbitration to take place outside that jurisdiction.