CLOUT
  index.

While the court must grant a stay of court proceedings pursuant to article 8 MAL where its terms are satisfied, the court retains some residual jurisdiction to exercise on an application for a stay.

A contract existed between the parties for the delivery of 375,000 barrels of crude oil. The contract contained an arbitration clause. The defendant refused delivery and the plaintiff sued for damages. The trial court granted the defendant's request for a stay of court proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to s. 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, Statutes of British Columbia 1986, c. 14, which enacts MAL. The plaintiff appealed.

The court determined that, while s. 8 requires that the court grant a stay unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, the court still has some residual jurisdiction to exercise. The court may exercise this jurisdiction and refuse to grant a stay should it conclude that one of the parties named in the proceeding is not a party to the arbitration agreement, the alleged dispute does not come within the terms of the arbitration agreement or if the application is out of time. The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant the stay of proceedings.

This case is cited in Case 69, Case 116, Case 179, Case 180 and Case 181.

Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "9 February 2000"):

Abstract published in English: [1995] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 1, issue 3, 71

Text of the court decision published in English: [1995] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 1, issue 3, 75

Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 1999.