Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Amr Amin Hamza El Nasharty v J Sainsbury Plc

Amr Amin Hamza El Nasharty v J Sainsbury Plc 13 November 2007 Tomlinson J Commercial Court [2007] EWHC 2618 [2007] ArbLR 18 Arbitration--Enforcement--Stay--Assertion of counterclaim in ICC arbitration--Bankruptcy--Whether arbitration agreement concluded under duress (no)--Whether financial incapacity renders arbitration agreement inoperative (no)--Whether arbitration agreement deprives party of right to access to court under European Human Rights Convention (no)--Whether to stay proceedings (yes)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 Allegation that agreement concluded under duress does not affect arbitration clause it contains In 1999, Sainsbury, Amr Amin Hamza El Nasharty, and others entered into four agreements to transfer to Sainsbury an 80% shareholding in an Egyptian company, Edge. When the project proved unsuccessful, Sainsbury entered into an agreement with El Nasharty and others, in 2001, to acquire the outstanding shareholding in Edge. This agreement was not completed or performed. Subsequently, Sainsbury sold all of its shares in Edge back to El Nasharty and others. This agreement also varied the terms of the 1999 agreements. It referred disputes to ICC arbitration. The other vendors of the shares in Edge challenged Mr El Nasharty's authority to represent them in entering into the agreements in proceedings brought in England. Sainsbury obtained a stay of these proceedings.1 ICC proceedings were commenced in which Sainsbury sought http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Amr Amin Hamza El Nasharty v J Sainsbury Plc

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2007 (1) – Jan 1, 2007

Amr Amin Hamza El Nasharty v J Sainsbury Plc

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2007 (1) – Jan 1, 2007

Abstract

13 November 2007 Tomlinson J Commercial Court [2007] EWHC 2618 [2007] ArbLR 18 Arbitration--Enforcement--Stay--Assertion of counterclaim in ICC arbitration--Bankruptcy--Whether arbitration agreement concluded under duress (no)--Whether financial incapacity renders arbitration agreement inoperative (no)--Whether arbitration agreement deprives party of right to access to court under European Human Rights Convention (no)--Whether to stay proceedings (yes)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 Allegation that agreement concluded under duress does not affect arbitration clause it contains In 1999, Sainsbury, Amr Amin Hamza El Nasharty, and others entered into four agreements to transfer to Sainsbury an 80% shareholding in an Egyptian company, Edge. When the project proved unsuccessful, Sainsbury entered into an agreement with El Nasharty and others, in 2001, to acquire the outstanding shareholding in Edge. This agreement was not completed or performed. Subsequently, Sainsbury sold all of its shares in Edge back to El Nasharty and others. This agreement also varied the terms of the 1999 agreements. It referred disputes to ICC arbitration. The other vendors of the shares in Edge challenged Mr El Nasharty's authority to represent them in entering into the agreements in proceedings brought in England. Sainsbury obtained a stay of these proceedings.1 ICC proceedings were commenced in which Sainsbury sought

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/amr-amin-hamza-el-nasharty-v-j-sainsbury-plc-xB0LcixoHF
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2012
Subject
Judgements
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2007.1.209
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

13 November 2007 Tomlinson J Commercial Court [2007] EWHC 2618 [2007] ArbLR 18 Arbitration--Enforcement--Stay--Assertion of counterclaim in ICC arbitration--Bankruptcy--Whether arbitration agreement concluded under duress (no)--Whether financial incapacity renders arbitration agreement inoperative (no)--Whether arbitration agreement deprives party of right to access to court under European Human Rights Convention (no)--Whether to stay proceedings (yes)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 9 Allegation that agreement concluded under duress does not affect arbitration clause it contains In 1999, Sainsbury, Amr Amin Hamza El Nasharty, and others entered into four agreements to transfer to Sainsbury an 80% shareholding in an Egyptian company, Edge. When the project proved unsuccessful, Sainsbury entered into an agreement with El Nasharty and others, in 2001, to acquire the outstanding shareholding in Edge. This agreement was not completed or performed. Subsequently, Sainsbury sold all of its shares in Edge back to El Nasharty and others. This agreement also varied the terms of the 1999 agreements. It referred disputes to ICC arbitration. The other vendors of the shares in Edge challenged Mr El Nasharty's authority to represent them in entering into the agreements in proceedings brought in England. Sainsbury obtained a stay of these proceedings.1 ICC proceedings were commenced in which Sainsbury sought

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.