Hayter v Nelson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date22 March 1990
Date22 March 1990
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Hayter
and
Nelson and Others

Before Mr Justice Saville

Queen's Bench Division

Arbitration - clause - "dispute"

Meaning of `dispute' in arbitrations

In the context of an arbitration, the words "disputes" and "differences" were applicable to cases even where it could be there and then determined that one party or other was in the right.

Mr Justice Saville so held in the Queen's Bench Division in a reserved judgment, given in open court after a hearing in chambers, in refusing to grant summary judgment to the defendants, Edward Ernest Nelson, a Lloyd's underwriter and other underwriters whom he represented, against the third party, Home Insurance Company, and in granting a stay of the proceedings.

Mr Colin Edelman for the defendants; Mr Jeffrey Gruder for the third party; the plaintiffs did not appear and were not represented.

MR JUSTICE SAVILLE said that the defendants sought summary judgment against the third party, while the latter sought a stay of proceedings under section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1975.

The defendants' claim was for an indemnity in respect of sums which they had been ordered to pay to the plaintiffs, who were also Lloyd's underwriters, under an arbitration award and by a judgment of the court.

In each case the plaintiffs were held entitled to recover the respective amounts in question from the defendants under a whole portfolio reinsurance treaty.

The claim for an indemnity was based on the fact that under a whole portfolio retrocession treaty the third party agreed with the defendants to accept by way of retrocession 100 per cent of the portfolio reinsurance treaty.

The context in which the arrangements were made was that the defendants agreed to "front" for the third party, since Lloyd's required that their own members should provide the reinsurance of the plaintiffs.

The parties agreed to refer to arbitration any differences arising out of the retrocession treaty which could not be settled amicably. The defendants' claim in the proceedings depended exclusively on the rights which they asserted they possessed and corresponding obligations which they asserted the third party owed under the retrocession treaty.

The third party accepted the existence and validity of the retrocession treaty but did not accept or agree that the parties' rights and obligations thereunder were as asserted by the defendants.

It had not been possible for the parties to settle the matter amicably, nor was it suggested that the third party was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 cases
  • Halki Shipping Corporation v Sopex Oils Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 December 1998
    ...Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd.WLR[1990] 1 WLR 153, 158–159, and Saville J. in Hayter v. NelsonUNK[1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 265.” The basis on which this jurisdiction has been exercised is that, in respect of the claim or some part of the claim to which there is ......
  • Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada [QBD (Comm)]
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 26 February 2004
    ...by the Privy Council in Hui Chi-Ming v R [1992] 1 AC 34. 52 The same general rules apply to the effect of an arbitration award: Hayter v Nelson [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 265, 271. 53 As Saville J observed in Hayter v Nelson, parties may agree to be bound by a judgment or award given against (or ......
  • Coop International Pte Ltd v Ebel SA
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 March 1998
    ...2 SLR 508 (folld) Faghirzadeh v Rudolf Wolff (SA) (Pty) Ltd [1977] 1 Lloyd's Rep 630 (distd) Hayter v Nelson and Home Insurance Co [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 265 (folld) Kianta Osakeyhtio v Britain & Overseas Trading Company, Ltd [1954] 1 Lloyd's Rep 247 (folld) Koh Siak Poo v Perkayuan OKS Sdn B......
  • ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 3 December 2014
    ...a valid decision that is capable of being enforced. 36 In the context of arbitration clauses a similar submission has been upheld: see Hayter v Nelson [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 265. In that case Saville J (as he then was) held that it was no answer to a reference to arbitration that a claim is s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • STAY OF LITIGATION PENDING ARBITRATION
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1994, December 1994
    • 1 December 1994
    ...Bhd v Ong Ah Bah[1986] 1 MLJ 237; D & C Finance Bhd v Overseas Assurance Corpn Ltd[1989] 3 MLJ 240. 18 But see Hayter v Nelson[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 265 for the view that any disagreement between the parties is a dispute and that courts must not interfere with arbitration if that was the chos......
  • ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT 1994
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1995, December 1995
    • 1 December 1995
    ...at pp 440—1. The court then went on to state the questions to be dealt with by the court when the two applications are heard. 39 [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 265. On the facts, the court found such a dispute to exist and therefore ordered a stay. See also Tradax International S A v Cerrahog......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT