APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

Dr. Antino looks at Challenges to an Arbitrators Jurisdiction

Dr. Antino looks at Challenges to an Arbitrators Jurisdiction

 

This is a matter arising out of an Arbitration where Dr. Philip Antino of dr.antino.apaproperty.com and www.apaproperty.comand https://www.antinoandassociates.com/was acting for the Claimant.  The Respondent had instructed Counsel who declined to be identified or participate in this blog.

 

Whilst Arbitration is a private and confidential process, the following discusses a discreet issue without disclosing the details of the parties or any specific details about the case.

 

The Respondents single advanced by Counsel appeared to rely on two points: -

 

1.    That there was no Arbitration clause in the terms and conditions/contract that entitled the Arbitrator to hear the dispute;

 

2.    That in the event that there was an Arbitration clause, it was the Claimant not his employer (a Limited company) who had carried out the services on behalf of the Respondent and therefore should be substituted for the Claimant.

 

In Dr. Antino’s opinion this strategy was without merit and on the undisputable facts was doomed to failure for the following reasons: -

 

1.    The Claimants terms and conditions at section 15 explicitly included a clause that all disputes were to be settled by Arbitration. 

 

2.    The Respondents had on receipt of the terms and conditions acknowledged receipt and stated unequivocally “we agree with the terms and conditions.”  Therefore, binding themselves to Arbitration.

 

3.    When the claimant approached the CIArb www.ciarb.org requesting that they appoint an independent Arbitrator through their disputes process das@ciarb.org the Claimant had to provide a copy of the T&C to demonstrate that there was a valid arbitration agreement. CIArb were satisfied and therefore appointed an Arbitrator.

 

4.    On invitation from the CIArb, the Arbitrator undertook his due diligence and confirmed the Arbitration agreement was valid and binding.

 

It is against this background of various independent agreements and checks, that the Respondent’s submission  that there was no arbitration clause was bizarre if not reckless.

 

Those of you familiar with the Arbitration Act will be aware that an Arbitrator has jurisdiction to determine his/her jurisdiction under section 30(1) (a) – (c).

 

Dr. Antino successfully demonstrated that the section 15 terms and conditions were not only clear on the dispute resolution procedure (ADR) being Arbitration, but that the Respondents had accepted the terms and conditions and were therefore bound by the Arbitration clause.

 

The Arbitrator found in favour of Dr. Antino in that: -

 

1.    The Arbitrator rejected Respondent’s approach first point on jurisdiction;

 

2.    The Arbitrator ruled that whilst the person employed by the Claimant carried out the services, the contract was between the Claimant’s company and the Respondent; and

 

3.    Interim payments had been made by the Respondents to the Claimant Company which included VAT.  Therefore, the Respondent had accepted that the company was the Claimant.

 

The above narrative is important, if a Respondent is intent on advancing a defence that challenges the decision-makers jurisdiction, (Arbitration/Adjudication etc) they have to provide robust evidence and grounds to be successful.  Any party that pins its hopes on limited challenges on jurisdiction and very little else is acting (in my opinion recklessly) as the Respondents found out to their cost.  They could have settled the matters for circa £4,600 in the end it cost circa £42,000.

Judges Comments and Opinions regarding Dr. Antino

  • The party wall world is relatively small, the stage of this world contains a number of well-known players, Mr Antino is one of these well-known players and so are his owners instructing solicitor Mr Ashley Bean of Thirsk Winton

    HHJ Bailey - [2016]
  • The Claimants have a very experienced legal team comprising Mr David Mayall of lambchambers & Mr Ashley Bean of thirsK winton and their surveyro Dr. Philip Antino. The evidence in particular of the Defendant’s plans for both the Accessway and the plans and how it impacted upon the Claimants business was important information that The Defendants ahd not provided when requested.

    HHJ Freedland QC - [2021]
  • "Mr Antino is a palpable witness, Mr Antino's explanation of the unique attributes of the "Thompson Plan" greatly assisted the Court to understand the location and extent of the claimants’ boundaries” (Best & Best v Perkins & Dennis in the County Court at Luton).

    HHJ Hildyard - [2015]
  • The appeal was a preliminary hearing of two points in respect of an Award served by Mr Antino and a surveyor appointed by Mr Antino under s.10(4) on behalf of the Building Owners the Appellants. HHJ Luba QC sitting in the Central London County Court held "In my judgment the Award is valid, the use of s.10(4) was the appropriate procedure given the Building Owners refusal to appoint a surveyor. A dispute had arisen that satisfied s.10 procedures, The Award is an impressive piece of work". Schmid v Hulls and Athananasou).

    HHJ Luba QC - [2016]
  • “Mr Antino is an acknowledged expert in the field of party wall issues.”

    HHJ Murfitt QC 2013 - [2015]
  • “I have known Philip for many years as a surveyor, he is a very good surveyor, as this book shows he is a very good author and this book can only advance his reputation”

    HHJ Philip Bartle QC - [2012]
  • “In the appeal of an ex-parte Award served by Mr Antino on behalf of the respondents, in my judgment the respondent is correct. Mr Antino’s contention that it is not a matter for negotiation directly between one surveyor and the other surveyor’s client. Since I have determined that the ex-parte Award was valid the court is still able to determine the Award and under the statutory powers to modify the Award if appropriate. I am grateful to Mr Antino suggesting that I now determine the Award issue “I accept that Mr Antino’s hourly rate is not in my judgment unreasonable. It follows that the fee set out in the ex-parte Award had been properly justified and I therefore award Mr Antino’s fees”. (Bansal v Myers Romford County Court).

    HHJ Platt - [2007]

Latest Posts

Alex Frame’s Third Surveyor Award of compensation reduced by 50% in May & Crown Ltd v Shipton & Shipton [H20CL085]

Alex Frame (President of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors) www.fpws.org.uk was selected as a Third Surveyor, awards excessive damages.H ...

Continue Reading

Injunctions for breach of party wall act 1996: the only legal option

Conaghan & Conaghan v Abdul (2022) Edmonton County Court “return date hearing”This follows the ex-parte injunction of the 11.02.22 Mr Abdul (the Defendant) instructed Mr St ...

Continue Reading

Shah v Ken Power & Lee Kyson [2022] EWHC 209 (QB) Mr Justice Eyre

Appeal in the High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division in relation to an ex temporejudgment of HHJ Parfitt in a party wall matter.  The Appellants were represented by Mr Nick Isaac QC and Mr. Carl Fain on a direct access basis both of Tanfi ...

Continue Reading

Need our Services?

Click the button below to be brought to our inquiry form and we will contact you as soon as possible to discuss. Alternatively, call us on 01245 492495.

GET IN TOUCH