The High Court has stayed proceedings brought by Go Code Limited against Capita Business Services Limited and directed the dispute to arbitration under Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern delivered judgment on 27 October 2015. The defendant had applied under section 6 of the Arbitration Act 2010 and Article 8 of the Model Law to stay the court proceedings because the matters raised by the plaintiff fell to be determined by arbitration.
The proceedings began with a plenary summons issued on 9 June 2014. Capita entered an appearance on 15 August, and Go Code delivered its statement of claim on 18 December. Capita brought its stay motion on 23 March 2015.
Go Code argued that Capita’s requests for a statement of claim, along with a letter sent before proceedings setting out the claim, showed engagement with the court process and amounted to a representation that Capita would not rely on arbitration. It also said delivery of the statement of claim caused additional costs.
Capita argued that, apart from entering an appearance and requesting the statement of claim, it had taken no step in the proceedings that amounted to its first statement on the substance of the dispute. The judge noted that three months separated delivery of the statement of claim and the stay motion, compared with a 15-month gap in the Supreme Court’s Fury decision.
The judge found that Capita’s letters of 28 August, 18 September and 31 October 2014 merely requested the statement of claim. The final letter indicated that Capita would seek dismissal for want of prosecution if it was not delivered. The correspondence did not amount to a promise or representation that Capita would not rely on the arbitration clause.
The court also rejected Go Code’s claim of detriment from the cost of preparing the statement of claim. Capita had told the court that the document could serve as its points of claim in arbitration, and the judge found no basis in the cited cases for treating delivery of a statement of claim as detriment.
The judge distinguished the case from Mitchell v Mulvey Developments Limited and said he was bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in Fury v Lurgan-ville Construction Company Limited. He found no evidence that the agreement’s arbitration clause was null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The court therefore ordered a stay in the terms of paragraph 1 of the notice of motion dated 24 February 2015. The judgment does not determine the underlying dispute.