James Lazenby & Co v McNicholas Construction Co Ltd
James Lazenby & Co v McNicholas Construction Co Ltd
- 1995
- All England Law Reports (1995) 3 AllER 821-841 (10) .
QBD 7 November, 21 December 1994. In 1988, the plaintiff (L) began proceedings against M over the pricing and costs of a labour-only sub-contract. The proceedings were stayed pursuant to an arbitration clause in the contract. After 15 months L commenced arbitration. There was then a delay of 9 months and, in July 1992, M applied to strike out L`s claim under the Arbitration Act 1950 s13A . The application was rejected on the grounds that s13A came into force in January 1992 and was not retrospective. Following a HL decision in 1993 that s13A was retrospective, the arbitrator issued a final award in which he dismissed L`s claim under s13A. L appealed. Appeal allowed.
ARBITRATION ACT 1950 S13A
COURTS AND LEGAL SERVICES ACT 1990
DISMISSAL OF CLAIM
INORDINATE AND INEXCUSABLE DELAY
JAMES LAZENBY & CO V MCNICHOLAS CONSTRUCTION LTD
QBD 7 November, 21 December 1994. In 1988, the plaintiff (L) began proceedings against M over the pricing and costs of a labour-only sub-contract. The proceedings were stayed pursuant to an arbitration clause in the contract. After 15 months L commenced arbitration. There was then a delay of 9 months and, in July 1992, M applied to strike out L`s claim under the Arbitration Act 1950 s13A . The application was rejected on the grounds that s13A came into force in January 1992 and was not retrospective. Following a HL decision in 1993 that s13A was retrospective, the arbitrator issued a final award in which he dismissed L`s claim under s13A. L appealed. Appeal allowed.
ARBITRATION ACT 1950 S13A
COURTS AND LEGAL SERVICES ACT 1990
DISMISSAL OF CLAIM
INORDINATE AND INEXCUSABLE DELAY
JAMES LAZENBY & CO V MCNICHOLAS CONSTRUCTION LTD