Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Company Ltd v Sogex (International) Ltd
Jurisdiction | Jersey |
Court | Royal Court |
Judge | (Crill, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Perrée and Picot): |
Judgment Date | 11 February 1982 |
Date | 11 February 1982 |
F.C. Hamon for the plaintiff;
M.M.G. Voisin for the defendant.
Arbitrationagreement of referenceconflict of lawsagreement specifying applicability of "laws of England" to agreement does not oust procedural laws of Jersey in proceedings on agreement
Arbitrationstay of proceedingsno step after appearancestep after appearance no bar to stay of proceedings if necessary to protect defendant's position against possibility of summary judgment under Royal Court Rules 1968, r.6/8(2)
Conflict of Lawscontractsproper law of contractarbitration agreement specifying applicability of "laws of England" to agreement does not oust procedural laws of Jersey in proceedings on agreement
CRILL, DEPUTY BAILIFF:The plaintiff in this action is a manufacturing firm from Durham, and the defendant is a company incorporated according to the laws of this Island. It is the employer under three contracts between it and the plaintiff company. It is also part of an international organisation which we are told consists, inter alia, of Sogex United Kingdom Limited, which is a United Kingdom service contract company, and Sogex Arabia Incorporated, which we understand was incorporated after the contract was entered into. We were told that had Sogex Arabia Incorporated been in existence before the contracts were entered into that it would have been with that company rather than the Jersey incorporated company, the defendant, and the plaintiff that the contracts would have been concluded. Be that as it may, at the time the contracts were concluded, the Jersey company was chosen because of some export payment by Her Majesty's Government under the E.C.G.D. arrangements, but that is not relevant to this case. There are three contracts. The first one, and the main one, is what we have been told we should call the Main Fabrication Contract; the second one is called the Pipe Bridge Construction Contract, and it contains references in it which links it with the general provisions of the first contract; and the third contract is the Erection contract. All three relate to the building of a large desalination plant in Saudi Arabia. All three contracts contain, either directly or by cross reference between contract 1 and contract 2, two main important clauses. The first clause relates to arbitration and that is to be found in clause 55 in contract 1 which is as follows:
"If any dispute or difference shall arise between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
LC Pallot (Tarmac) Ltd v Gechena Ltd
...(7) Selby v. Romeril, 1996 JLR 210. Additional cases cited by counsel: Cleveland Bridge & Engr. Co. Ltd. v. Sogex (Intl.) Ltd., 1982 J.J. 101. Cooper v. Resch (formely Cooper), 1987-88 JLR 428. Duquemin v. Kontrol Ltd., 1985-86 JLR N-2. Picot (T.A.) (C.I.) Ltd. v. Crills, 1993 JLR 348. Show......
-
REGISTERED TRUSTEES of THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE of PORTSMOUTH v RENDLE (Practising as BREAKWELL and DAVIES), THATCHER Ltd and C.H. ROTHWELL and PARTNERS Ltd
...10th, 1995, unreported. Beghins Shoes Ltd. v. Avancement Ltd., 1994 JLR 15. Cleveland Bridge & Engr. Co. Ltd. v. Sogex (Intl.) Ltd., 1982 J.J. 101. Cunningham-Reid v. Buchanan-Jardine, [1988] 1 W.L.R. 678. Grimshaw v. Ruellan, 1976 J.J. 299. Le Mire (ne Rennell) v. Le Mire, Royal Ct., April......
-
Beghins Shoes Ltd and Island Gift Shops Ltd v Avancement Ltd
...Recovery Bd., 1982 J.J. 359, considered. Additional cases cited by counsel: Cleveland Bridge & Engr. Co. Ltd. v. Sogex (Intl.) Ltd., 1982 J.J. 101. Tirel v. Sinel, Royal Court, July 19th, 1993, unreported. Texts cited: Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed., vol. 2, para. 637, at 353. Nicholas......