Walkinshaw v. Diniz
England and Wales High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
[2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 237 (2000)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
On October 24, 1997, the owners and operators of Arrows Formula One racing team, including Walkinshaw, entered a contract with Diniz (defendant). Diniz agreed to drive for Arrows during the Formula One World Championships, an event governed by the 1997 Concorde Agreement. Arrows agreed to provide Diniz with a car and a spare car. As mandated under the 1997 Concorde Agreement, the contract between Diniz and Arrows contained Clause 11, which required parties to resolve disputes through the Contract Recognition Board (CRB). In November 1997, the contract was registered with the CRB. Diniz and Arrows then had a series of disputes, causing the convening of the CRB. Arrows, through its representative Walkinshaw (plaintiff), also filed litigation in the English courts. Diniz filed a stay to halt proceedings under § 9 of the English Arbitration Act of 1996, arguing that the parties had agreed to refer the matter to arbitration in the contract signed in 1997 and that the matter was pending in arbitration before the CRB. Arrows countered that the agreement signed in 1997 made no reference to arbitration in connection with the CRB. Arrows asserted that the CRB was merely a body to decide the rules of the game and that the arbitration should proceed before the CRB. Arrows also asserted that the CRB did not provide Arrows with an adequate opportunity to present its case or provide evidence as the CRB limited the evidence allowed and the time allotted for arguments.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, 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.