A v B [2025] EWHC – A Victory for Arbitration and Enforcing Contractual Rights
Introduction
Sterling Law successfully represented the Claimant in A v B [2025] EWHC, securing a court order to appoint an arbitrator after the opposing party refused to engage. This case highlights how arbitration clauses in contracts can be enforced, even when one party tries to avoid its obligations.
Our legal team, consisting of Kyrylo Sudnyk, Iryna Aleksieiva, and Liliia Akkuchukova, worked tirelessly to ensure our client’s rights were upheld and that arbitration could proceed despite the other party’s complete silence.
The Dispute
Our client entered into a charterparty agreement for the transportation of goods. The contract required the other party to provide a vessel by a certain date, but they failed to meet this deadline. This caused serious delays and financial losses, forcing our client to make alternative arrangements.
Despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter amicably, the other party ignored all communication. As the contract included an arbitration clause, our client sought to initiate arbitration but the opposing side refused to participate or nominate an arbitrator.
Our Legal Strategy
Under the Arbitration Act 1996, if one party refuses to cooperate in forming an arbitral tribunal, the High Court can intervene. We took the following steps:
- Filed an Arbitration Claim Form, asking the Court to appoint an arbitrator under section 18(3)(d) of the Act.
- Secured permission for alternative service under CPR 6.15, ensuring the other party was formally notified despite their attempts to avoid engagement.
- Proved to the Court that arbitration had been properly commenced and that the other side’s silence was delaying justice.
The High Court’s Ruling
The Court ruled in our client’s favour, confirming that:
- The arbitration was validly initiated, and the other side’s refusal to respond did not affect its validity.
- The Court had the power to appoint an arbitrator, ensuring the dispute could move forward.
- The other party’s lack of engagement was unacceptable.
Additionally, the Court awarded our client 90% of their legal costs (generally, the Court awards only 60-70% of the costs), recognising that the delays and additional expenses were solely due to the other party’s failure to cooperate.
Key Takeaways for Businesses
This case reinforces that arbitration agreements are legally binding, and ignoring them won’t make disputes disappear. If one party refuses to engage, the courts have the power to step in and enforce the process.
For businesses, this ruling is a reminder to:
- Ensure contracts include clear arbitration clauses to provide a structured resolution process.
- Act quickly if the other side refuses to engage, as the law provides remedies to prevent delays.
- Seek expert legal assistance to navigate arbitration disputes effectively.
How We Can Help
At Sterling Law, we specialise in enforcing contractual rights and resolving disputes efficiently. If you’re facing a situation where the other side is refusing to engage, our team—including Kyrylo Sudnyk, Iryna Aleksieiva, and Liliia Akkuchukova—is ready to help.
Contact us today to discuss your case and ensure your rights are protected.
