Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Bruce Jones (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Claimant/Respondent James Abrahams QC (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP) for the Defendant/Appellant Hearing date: Friday 11th November 2016 ____________________
It is common ground that the main application before the hearing officer was a reference under the section, so that subsection applies.
No particular issue was taken with this formulation. It was not suggested that the hearing officer did not acknowledge the correct test.
That does not seem to me to be a relevant matter. Whether or not the desires of the claimant were justified is not the point. The question is how the potential imbalance of costs and liabilities impacted on where the proper venue for the dispute was. In my view this is another error on the part of the hearing officer. He should have dealt with the question in the context of what it said about the appropriate venue for the determination of the dispute. There is, in my view, much to be said for Mr Abrahams' analysis.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.