The Arbitrability of Corporate Disputes After Fulham Football Club V. Richards: A Decade On

B. Kasolowsky, Roopa Mathews
{"title":"The Arbitrability of Corporate Disputes After Fulham Football Club V. Richards: A Decade On","authors":"B. Kasolowsky, Roopa Mathews","doi":"10.54648/joia2022011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v. Richards and The Football Association Premier League Ltd, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales settled a controversial matter, finding that unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 could be referred to arbitration. At the time the judgment was handed down, it was met with some scepticism with commentators arguing that it would lead to inconsistency and confusion in the arbitrability of disputes and the remedies that can be awarded in arbitration. In the years that followed, the Court of Appeal’s judgment has been relied on in the development of the arbitrability of corporate disputes in England and Wales and several other common law jurisdictions. On the occasion of the ten-year anniversary of the Fulham decision, this article explores whether the confusion and inconsistency that commentators predicted have, in fact, materialized.\nArbitrability, Arbitration Act 1996, Corporate disputes, Fulham Football Club v. Richards, Remedies, Section 994, Unfair prejudice","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v. Richards and The Football Association Premier League Ltd, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales settled a controversial matter, finding that unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 could be referred to arbitration. At the time the judgment was handed down, it was met with some scepticism with commentators arguing that it would lead to inconsistency and confusion in the arbitrability of disputes and the remedies that can be awarded in arbitration. In the years that followed, the Court of Appeal’s judgment has been relied on in the development of the arbitrability of corporate disputes in England and Wales and several other common law jurisdictions. On the occasion of the ten-year anniversary of the Fulham decision, this article explores whether the confusion and inconsistency that commentators predicted have, in fact, materialized. Arbitrability, Arbitration Act 1996, Corporate disputes, Fulham Football Club v. Richards, Remedies, Section 994, Unfair prejudice
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
富勒姆足球俱乐部诉理查兹案后企业纠纷的可仲裁性:十年来
在富勒姆足球俱乐部(1987)有限公司诉理查兹和足球协会超级联赛有限公司一案中,英格兰和威尔士上诉法院解决了一个有争议的问题,裁定根据1996年《英格兰仲裁法》第994条提出的不公平偏见申请可提交仲裁。在作出判决时,人们对判决持怀疑态度,评论员认为这将导致争议的可仲裁性和仲裁中可以裁决的补救措施的不一致和混乱。在随后的几年里,上诉法院的判决一直是英格兰和威尔士以及其他几个普通法管辖区公司纠纷可仲裁性发展的依据。在富勒姆决定十周年之际,本文探讨了评论员预测的混乱和不一致是否真的实现了。可仲裁性,《1996年仲裁法》,企业纠纷,富勒姆足球俱乐部诉理查兹案,补救措施,第994节,不公平偏见
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.
期刊最新文献
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Providing for Arbitration in Mainland China Administered by Overseas Arbitration Institutions ZF Auto. v. Luxshare: Supreme Court’s Withdrawal of Judicial Assistance for Discovery from Private Arbitration Political Risk and Its Key Role in Mining Disputes Around the World A New Era of Maritime Arbitration: Ex Machina Determinations Arbitrating Investment Disputes in Time of Geopolitical Unrest: Focus on Investment Protection in Russia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1