The defendant challenged her father's will by proceedings against other members of her family in the foreign country where she lived. She entered into a retainer with a firm of lawyers in that country, on the basis of a contingency fee. The claim was settled in London, and the money was paid into an account in Jersey.

The lawyers feared that they would not be paid their fee and brought an action in England for a Mareva injunction over the proceeds of the settlement. The retainer agreement was subject to English law and contained an arbitration clause.

The lawyers were granted an ex parte injunction which the defendant applied to have discharged, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction because the parties had agreed that all disputes deriving from their agreement should be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal. The court held that section 44 of the 1996 Act conferred power on the court to make orders in relation to arbitration proceedings such as the granting of an interim injunction, as it had in relation to legal proceedings, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of a judge or court under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. The aggrieved party had the right to apply to the judge or the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal.

The right to appeal with leave from a decision whether or not to stay litigation covered by an arbitration clause had not been removed by the 1996 Act.

The date from which interest on costs should accrue is the date of the award of costs, even if the sum has yet to be quantified.

Defects emerged after the Architects had issued their final certificate under the JCT 80 standard form. Neither party to the contract had challenged the final certificate within the 28 day period allotted by the contract.

The judge in the T & CC decided that the effect of the final certificate was not that the contractor had no liability, but the contractor had ceased to be liable.

This decision was reached because the judge concluded that the damage occurred before the issue of the final certificate, and was not therefore a latent defect.

In a case involving foundation subsidence, the judge said that he preferred the expert evidence of the defendants, but without giving reasons. The plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the judge had failed to give reasons for his decision. The Court of Appeal held that the duty of the judge to give reasons was clear.

Note that Section 52(4) of the 1996 Act requires the arbitrator to give reasons for the award unless the parties have agreed to dispense with reasons. By adopting certain Rules the parties may have so agreed.

An employer's common law right to damages for breach of contract was not removed because of his failure to notify a contractor of defects in building work within the time limits specified by Clause 2.5 of the JCT Minor Works form.

The Recorder had ruled that Clause 2.5 made it a condition precedent for the right to recover damages that the building owner had notified the contractor of patent defects within the six-month liability period. The Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal, explained that Clause 2.5 gave the contractor the right to return within the six-month period, but did not remove the common law right of the employer to employ another contractor to rectify the defects and to recover damages for breach of contract. However, where the contractor had been denied access to repair the defects the employer could not recover more than the amount which it would have cost the contractor himself to rectify the defect.

Section 41(3) of the 1996 Act giving power to the arbitrator to dismiss a claim for inexcusable delay reflects Birkett v James (1978) AC 297.

Further guidance on unless orders and striking out may be obtained from the case law since the 1996 Act was drafted, that is Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City Council (CA 31 Dec. 96), Grovit v Doctor (HL 1997) and Choraria v Setwia (CA 15 Jan 98). Space constraints prevent a detail review, therefore reading of the reports is recommended.