UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Roger Gherson, Emma Anderson, Cong Gao, Elizaveta Rachkova and Galiya Mustafina, Gherson Solicitors LLP
damages-based agreements and to introduce propor - tionate regulation. That legislation is awaited. 13.4 Consolidation Consolidation is only possible with party agreement. Under Section 35, parties may agree to consolidation or concurrent hearings, but absent such agreement, the tribunal cannot order either. The English courts have no power to consolidate. In practice, consent may come from an express clause, a later procedural agreement, or institutional rules. Consolidation should be distinguished from joinder (adding a party), co-ordinated case management and a single arbitration embracing claims under multiple contracts where one arbitration agreement is broad enough to cover them. The latter is a question of con - struction, not consolidation. There is no presumption that an arbitration clause in one contract captures disputes under another – that is a matter of careful construction, even if the result is fragmentation. 13.5 Binding of Third Parties The starting point is strict: arbitration is consensual, and an arbitration agreement binds only its parties. English law does not recognise the “group of compa - nies” doctrine ( Peterson Farms Inc v C & M Farming Ltd [2004] EWHC 121 (Comm)). A non-signatory is bound only where, under the law applicable to the arbitra - tion agreement, it can properly be regarded as hav - ing consented ( Dallah v Ministry of Religious Affairs , Government of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46). Nonetheless, recognised routes exist. Under Section 8 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a third party enforcing a contractual right subject to an arbitration clause is treated as a party for that purpose ( Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Company Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602 (Comm)). Section 82 (2) extends
“party” to persons claiming under or through a party, capturing assignees, novatees, subrogated insurers and universal successors ( Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL ( Holding ) [2023] UKSC 32). Agency principles may bind a principal, including an undisclosed principal. Operation of law supplies further routes: death (Section 8), a trustee in bankrupt - cy’s adoption of a contract, and statutory transfers under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. Piercing the corporate veil is confined to excep - tional evasion cases ( Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34). A narrow conflict-of-laws route exists ( Egiazaryan v OEK Finance [2015] EWHC 3532 (Comm)), where the question of whether a foreign par - ent was bound was referred to the law of incorpora - tion. Unlike Dallah , where French law did not establish common intention, in Egiazaryan Russian law permit - ted joinder by statute. As to awards, Section 58 provides that an award is final and binding only on the parties and privies, though it may found an issue of estoppel against a privy in interest. At enforcement, Sections 66 and 101 do not permit enforcement against a non-party or privy. English courts cannot compel a foreign third party to arbitrate absent consent, but their orders may affect foreign parties in practice. Anti-suit injunctions oper - ate in personam against anyone amenable to the court’s jurisdiction, including in support of foreign- seated arbitrations ( UniCredit v RusChemAlliance [2024] UKSC 30). Section 44 orders (eg, for preserving evidence) may be made against third parties, though service outside the jurisdiction requires the court’s permission (Section 44 (4)), and enforceability against persons with no presence or assets in the jurisdiction remains limited. By contrast, Sections 23A (arbitrator disclosure) and 39A (summary disposal) apply to the tribunal, not third parties.
1094 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook