Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd.
United Kingdom House of Lords
[1993] AC 334 (1993)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. (Channel Tunnel) (plaintiff) won a commission from the United Kingdom and French governments to construct a tunnel under the English Channel. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd. (Balfour Betty) (defendant) entered a construction contract with Channel Tunnel to commission the tunnel. The contract between Channel Tunnel and Balfour Beatty contained arbitration clauses providing that the parties would refer disputes to arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules in Brussels. The contract also contained a choice-of-law clause providing that the principles common to both English and French law governed the construction and performance of the contract. Disputes arose over the payment amount for the cooling system. Balfour Beatty threatened to cease work, and Channel Tunnel sought an injunction in the English courts to forbid Balfour Beatty from ceasing work. Balfour Beatty moved for a stay of the judicial proceedings under the English Arbitration Act 1975. The court of appeal stayed the injunction proceeding and refused to uphold the granting of the injunction. Channel Tunnel appealed to the House of Lords, arguing the courts could issue a final injunction under § 12(6)(h) of the Arbitration Act 1950. Balfour Beatty argued the court lacked the power to order Balfour Beatty back to work pending the decision of the arbitral tribunal. Channel Tunnel argued in the alternative that the court could issue an interim injunction under § 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mustill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.