Martin’s Commercial Limited v Cineworld Cinemas Holdings Limited
[2023] EWHC 1925 (Ch)
Gregarious Limited v Westgroup Investment Limited
22 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 748 (Ch)
High Court
A tenant tried to challenge an arbitrator's decision, claiming they didn't follow the rules for making a rent dispute claim under a special coronavirus law. The court said the tenant missed the deadline and the claim was too late, rejecting attempts to extend the deadline and add new arguments. The court highlighted the importance of strict time limits in legal matters.
Key Facts
- •Gregarious Limited (tenant) made a reference to arbitration under s. 10 of the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 on 22 September 2022.
- •The arbitrator found he lacked jurisdiction because the application was not made in accordance with s. 10(2) of the 2022 Act (requiring a minimum 14-day period between notice and reference).
- •Gregarious Limited brought a claim seeking to overturn the arbitrator's decision, also requesting an extension of time under the Arbitration Act 1996.
- •The claim was issued outside the 28-day time limit for challenging jurisdiction under s. 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
- •The defendant, Westgroup Investment Limited (landlord), applied to strike out the claim.
- •The claimant argued that the landlord's acknowledgement of the notice validated the late reference, and that time should be extended under s. 12(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996.
Legal Principles
Construction of s. 10 of the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 regarding time limits for making a reference to arbitration.
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022, s. 10
Time limits for challenging jurisdictional decisions under s. 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
Arbitration Act 1996, s. 67
Grounds for extending time under s. 12(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (in the context of statutory arbitrations).
Arbitration Act 1996, s. 12(3)(b)
Principles for extending time limits in arbitration claims, as outlined in *Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International AG* [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 128.
Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International AG [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 128
Statutory interpretation principles, including consideration of the consequences of non-compliance (R v Soneji [2006] 1 AC 340).
R v Soneji [2006] 1 AC 340
Outcomes
The claim was struck out.
The court held that the time restrictions in the 2022 Act were mandatory, and the reference was invalid due to non-compliance. The application for an extension of time was also refused due to insufficient justification and the inherent weakness of the claim.
Permission to amend the claim form was refused.
The proposed amendment raised a new, unpleaded case, significantly late in the proceedings, and lacked sufficient merit.
Similar Cases
Friedhelm Eronat v CPNC International (Chad) Ltd & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2880 (Comm)
Timothy Michael Lord KC & Ors v Haron Angela Jeanette Kinsella & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2748 (Ch)
Leicester Square (2015) Limited & Ors v Empire Cinema 2 Limited
[2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch)
Quaid-e-Azam Thermal Power (Private) Ltd v Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited
[2024] EWHC 70 (Comm)