000			01384cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS38359
008			090401t1987 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u10086
041			_aeng
245			_aCunningham-Reid and another v Buchanan-Jardine
260			_c1987
350			_a0
490			_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v(1987) CILL 368(1)
520			_aChD 23 June 1987 The defendant, an interior designer had contracted to carry out work in the plaintiffs` home and in the contract between them, any disputes or differences were to be referred to arbitration. The plaintiffs issued a writ in the High Court alleging that the defendant was guilty of fraud and relying on the High Court`s discretion under the Arbitration Act 1950 , the defendant sought an order to stay the court proceedings so that the dispute could be put to arbitration. ChD held that although there was a serious charge of fraud in this case, there was no good reason why the normal course of allowing the matter to proceed to arbitration as originally agreed by the two parties should not be adopted. The defendant was entitled to insist that the dispute be determined by arbitration rather than be exposed to the possible adverse possibility which legal proceedings would cause.
650			_aPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
690			_aARBITRATION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c6338 _d6338