Image from Google Jackets

Ahmed Al-Naimi (trading as Buildmaster Construction Services) v Islamic Press Agency Incorporated

Series: Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Law Journal ; [2000] ADRLJ 324-331(8)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: CA 28 January 2000. A appealed against a stay of court proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996 s9, which was granted on the grounds that there were 'genuine disputes' concerning the construction of a contract in the standard JCT agreement for minor building works 1980 edition signed in July 1996, on the grounds that the judge had refused to decide if the action was covered by the arbitration agreement relied upon by I. A claimed that work not originally envisaged by the contract was not covered by the contract and was not the subject of an arbitration clause. The CA ruled that it was overwhelmingly clear that there was only the one contract and that this had been extended to cover the additional work. "Held": appeal dismissed; but with the indication that the issue left open by the judge had been decided by the CA in favour of the respondent.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS63373 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 110500-1001

CA 28 January 2000. A appealed against a stay of court proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996 s9, which was granted on the grounds that there were 'genuine disputes' concerning the construction of a contract in the standard JCT agreement for minor building works 1980 edition signed in July 1996, on the grounds that the judge had refused to decide if the action was covered by the arbitration agreement relied upon by I. A claimed that work not originally envisaged by the contract was not covered by the contract and was not the subject of an arbitration clause. The CA ruled that it was overwhelmingly clear that there was only the one contract and that this had been extended to cover the additional work. "Held": appeal dismissed; but with the indication that the issue left open by the judge had been decided by the CA in favour of the respondent.

Previous
Back to results
Next
Close