Back to Insights- Arbitration
Shorter Reads
ENGLISH HIGH COURT STAYS COURT PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOUR OF ARBITRATION
In Helice Leasing S.A.S. v PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) TbK [2021] EWHC 99 (Comm), the English Commercial Court faced with conflicting dispute resolution provisions applied a business common sense construction in deciding in favour of arbitration.
2 minute read
Published 6 April 2021
Authors
- Visit profile
Craig Deuchrass
Senior Associate
- Read more from Craig
Key information
- Specialisms
- Dispute Resolution
- Services
- Arbitration
The court granted a stay of proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, finding a reference to “court” in the underlying contract to be a reference to the London Court of International Arbitration.
The case is a reminder to commercial parties that they should give consideration to specific breaches that might arise under a contract and in what forum they wish those specific breaches to be resolved.
FACTS
PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) TBK (“Garuda”) and Helice Leasing S.A.S (“Helice”) were the lessee and lessor respectively of a Boeing 737-800 aircraft.
Garuda was in rental arrears which was an undisputed fact. Following some failed attempts at reaching agreement regarding a repayment plan, Helice issued a claim in the High Court against Garuda for non-payment. Garuda applied to stay the proceedings pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, on the basis that Helice had breached the parties’ agreement to arbitrate under the aircraft lease
CONFLICTING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISIONS IN AIRCRAFT LEASE
The lease contained two apparently contradictory dispute resolution clauses:
- Clause 15.2 provided that “…any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Lease Agreement, … shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration.”
- In contrast, Clause 13.2 provided that “… if an Event of Default occurs, … Lessor may at its option … proceed by appropriate court action or actions to enforce performance of this Lease Agreement or to recover damages for the breach of this Lease Agreement.”
At the hearing Helice argued that Clause 13.2 gave it an additional, unilateral, option to commence litigation proceedings, in the event that Garuda was in default for non-payment.
HIGH COURT’S DECISON
The Commercial Court noted that Clause 13.2 was “not happily worded” and held that:
“In order to give the contract a business common-sense construction… the “court action” referred to in Clause 13.2 must reasonably have been intended to mean action before the London Court of International Arbitration, in accordance with Clause 15.2;
The wording of clause 13.2 was held to be significant: It would only apply “If an Event of Default occurs” and not merely “If an Event of Default is alleged“. The Court considered that any dispute as to whether an Event of Default had in fact occurred would plainly constitute a “dispute” under clause 15.2. Specifically, the Court dismissed a claim by Helice that because Garuda had impliedly admitted that sums were due and owing, there was no dispute capable of being referred to arbitration. Whether or not an “Event of Default” occurred was a “dispute” itself within the meaning of clause 15.2 and should therefore be resolved in arbitration. It was held that if this issue were to be resolved by the Court that would usurp the role of the arbitrator.
Relatedly, the High Court was also asked to consider whether there was a dispute capable of being referred to arbitration given that Garuda had impliedly admitted it was in rent arrears and did not dispute the quantum of the claim. The Court held that by reason of Garuda’s refusal to pay there was a “dispute” within the meaning of clause 15.2. This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that Helice also sought an indemnity pursuant to the Lease which had not been foreshadowed by it in inter-party correspondence.
The court therefore granted Garuda a stay of the proceedings in favour of arbitration, in light of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate under Clause 15.2 of the lease.
COMMENT
This case is a good illustration of why it is important that jurisdiction and dispute resolution provisions in commercial agreements should be clear and consistent, to avoid the risk of lengthy and costly disputes.
The English Courts will endeavour to construe the terms of the relevant contract, including the dispute resolution provisions, so as to give effect to the parties’ objective intentions. However, where drafting is unclear or provisions are contradictory, the courts will adopt a “business common-sense” approach to construction – but the result might not always be easy to predict!
Related latest updates
PREV
NEXT
Longer Reads
Read more
Trends in International Arbitration: A review of the 2023 casework statistics for the LCIA and ICC
Longer Reads
Read more
Nix Of $11B Award Shows Limits Of Arbitral Process
Longer Reads
Read more
English court dismisses section 68 challenge to calculation of ICC award
Longer Reads
Read more
What EU Oil Spill Insurance Ruling Means For UK Arbitration
Shorter Reads
Read more
Lawyers welcome plans to boost arbitration laws to secure London’s status as leading disputes hub
Longer Reads
Read more
Remote arbitration hearings
Shorter Reads
Read more
English Court confirms it has no jurisdiction to permit a counterclaim in enforcement proceedings
Longer Reads
Read more
Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse – bribery claims proceed by way of arbitration
Longer Reads
Read more
Arbitration and Foreign Governments: Peers debate transparency vs. confidentialityShorter Reads
Read more
Arbitration clauses in ISDA master agreementsLonger Reads
Read more
Uk Supreme Court Rules On Apparent Bias Of Arbitrators
Longer Reads
Read more
Taking evidence in international arbitration – IBA rules versus the Italian and English legal systemsLonger Reads
Read more
New LCIA Arbitration Rules: In force on 1 October 2020
Longer Reads
Read more
DOUBLE HATTING: DUTY TO DISCLOSE TIES BETWEEN ARBITRATORS AND EXPERTS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
Longer Reads
Read more
The 2019 LCIA Casework Report: Record Number of New Cases
Related content
Shorter Reads
ENGLISH HIGH COURT STAYS COURT PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOUR OF ARBITRATION
In Helice Leasing S.A.S. v PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) TbK [2021] EWHC 99 (Comm), the English Commercial Court faced with conflicting dispute resolution provisions applied a business common sense construction in deciding in favour of arbitration.
Published 6 April 2021
Associated sectors / services
Authors
The court granted a stay of proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, finding a reference to “court” in the underlying contract to be a reference to the London Court of International Arbitration.
The case is a reminder to commercial parties that they should give consideration to specific breaches that might arise under a contract and in what forum they wish those specific breaches to be resolved.
FACTS
PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) TBK (“Garuda”) and Helice Leasing S.A.S (“Helice”) were the lessee and lessor respectively of a Boeing 737-800 aircraft.
Garuda was in rental arrears which was an undisputed fact. Following some failed attempts at reaching agreement regarding a repayment plan, Helice issued a claim in the High Court against Garuda for non-payment. Garuda applied to stay the proceedings pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, on the basis that Helice had breached the parties’ agreement to arbitrate under the aircraft lease
CONFLICTING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISIONS IN AIRCRAFT LEASE
The lease contained two apparently contradictory dispute resolution clauses:
- Clause 15.2 provided that “…any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Lease Agreement, … shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration.”
- In contrast, Clause 13.2 provided that “… if an Event of Default occurs, … Lessor may at its option … proceed by appropriate court action or actions to enforce performance of this Lease Agreement or to recover damages for the breach of this Lease Agreement.”
At the hearing Helice argued that Clause 13.2 gave it an additional, unilateral, option to commence litigation proceedings, in the event that Garuda was in default for non-payment.
HIGH COURT’S DECISON
The Commercial Court noted that Clause 13.2 was “not happily worded” and held that:
“In order to give the contract a business common-sense construction… the “court action” referred to in Clause 13.2 must reasonably have been intended to mean action before the London Court of International Arbitration, in accordance with Clause 15.2;
The wording of clause 13.2 was held to be significant: It would only apply “If an Event of Default occurs” and not merely “If an Event of Default is alleged“. The Court considered that any dispute as to whether an Event of Default had in fact occurred would plainly constitute a “dispute” under clause 15.2. Specifically, the Court dismissed a claim by Helice that because Garuda had impliedly admitted that sums were due and owing, there was no dispute capable of being referred to arbitration. Whether or not an “Event of Default” occurred was a “dispute” itself within the meaning of clause 15.2 and should therefore be resolved in arbitration. It was held that if this issue were to be resolved by the Court that would usurp the role of the arbitrator.
Relatedly, the High Court was also asked to consider whether there was a dispute capable of being referred to arbitration given that Garuda had impliedly admitted it was in rent arrears and did not dispute the quantum of the claim. The Court held that by reason of Garuda’s refusal to pay there was a “dispute” within the meaning of clause 15.2. This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that Helice also sought an indemnity pursuant to the Lease which had not been foreshadowed by it in inter-party correspondence.
The court therefore granted Garuda a stay of the proceedings in favour of arbitration, in light of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate under Clause 15.2 of the lease.
COMMENT
This case is a good illustration of why it is important that jurisdiction and dispute resolution provisions in commercial agreements should be clear and consistent, to avoid the risk of lengthy and costly disputes.
The English Courts will endeavour to construe the terms of the relevant contract, including the dispute resolution provisions, so as to give effect to the parties’ objective intentions. However, where drafting is unclear or provisions are contradictory, the courts will adopt a “business common-sense” approach to construction – but the result might not always be easy to predict!
Associated sectors / services
- Arbitration
Authors
Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.
Subscribe
Please add your details and your areas of interest below
Article contributor
Craig
DeuchrassSenior Associate
Specialising in Commercial disputes, Banking & financial disputes and Commercial arbitration
Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?
Subscribe to our articlesMessage us on WhatsApp (calling not available)
Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.
Close
