Cohen v Baram
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1993 |
| Date | 24 November 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Dillon, Lord Justice Mann and Lord Justice Hirst
Practice - summary judgment - propriety of arbitrators' costs award no defence
A defendant in summary Order 14 proceedings arising out of an arbitration award could not raise issues concerning the propriety of the arbitrators' costs award by way of a defence.
The Court of Appeal so held in dismissing Mr David Baram's appeal against the dismissal by Mr Graham Hamilton, QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division, of his appeal against the refusal of Master Prebble to give him leave to defend an action brought by Mr Arnold Cohen and four others, all trustees of the Federation of Synagogues.
Mr Jack Denbin for Mr Baram; Mr Stephen Shaw for the trustees.
LORD JUSTICE HIRST said that the appeal centered entirely on an order for costs made by the Beth Din of the Federation of Synagogues, London, in an arbitration between two claimants, Mr Landau and Mr Adler, and Mr Baram. The parties to the arbitration had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Beth Din by a written agreement under the Arbitration Acts 1950 and 1979 whereby they agreed, inter alia, that the award of the Beth Din "shall be final and binding and to pay such costs as the Beth Din may determine".
It was common ground that it was an established principle of Jewish law that in a Beth Din arbitration each party should bear its own legal costs. The Beth Din found for Mr Baram and ordered that its costs, the arbitrators' fees and expenses, should be divided equally with each side paying £2,000.
Mr Baram declined to pay. The trustees issued a writ and were given summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court by the Master which was upheld by the judge. Mr Baram raised a number of grounds which he contended entitled him to leave to defend.
The first was the trustees' status. His Lordship was satisfied that the trustees were the correct plaintiffs. The arbitration took place under their aegis and the expenses were incurred by them. The arbitrators were employees of the Federation and would not have been appropriate plaintiffs.
The second was the propriety of the costs award. Mr Baram contended, inter alia, that the decision on costs was not a judicial exercise of discretion because the arbitrators failed to apply the general rule that costs follow the event and failed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halpern v Halpern (No 1)
...save as to the identity of the agreed Beth Din, as the arbitration agreements considered by the Court of Appeal in Cohen v Boram [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep 138; and Kestner v Jason [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep 397. That is an indication that the parties intended that the arbitration agreement should be su......
-
Andrew Martin v Michael Harris
...Blexen Ltd v G Percy Trentham Ltd [1990] 4 EG 133; King v Thomas McKenna Ltd [1991] 2 QB 480; and Cohen and ors v Baram [1994] 2 Lloyds LR 138. However, these were all appeals against costs awards where there was something about the costs award itself that was potentially appealable. For ......