Appeal filed against Somerset Entertainment Ventures dismissed
Tuesday, 6 August 2013 00:00
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The Supreme Court on 31 July 2013 dismissed an application for leave to appeal filed by Peter Nell, a recruiting agent for the Sri Lanka Premier League (SLPL) tournament against Somerset Entertainment Ventures (Singapore) Ltd., the organisers of the SLPL.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that even though the agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause, in which the parties have agreed to refer all disputes to an arbitration tribunal in Singapore, it has no application as the said clause was defective and ambiguous rendering it nugatory.
It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that Section 5 of the Arbitration Act of Sri Lanka which provides that if a party to an arbitration agreement institutes legal action, such court will have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, if the other party objects to such action; has no relevance since the Sri Lankan act only applies to arbitrations where the seat of arbitration is Sri Lanka and not otherwise.
President’s Counsel Faiszer Musthapha together with Attorneys-at-Law Isuru Balapatabendi and Navoda Wijeratne instructed by Nithi Murugesu Associates appeared for the respondent, Somerset Entertainment Ventures. It was argued by the counsel on behalf of the respondent that the Sri Lanka Arbitration Act is not an act which is only of territorial application and as such even applies to arbitrations where the seat of arbitration is held outside Sri Lanka.
It was also argued on behalf of the respondent that what court needs to look into is a clear intention of the parties to arbitrate thus giving recognition to the principle of party autonomy while not drawing upon subtle distinctions in the wording of the arbitration clauses to reason out whether it constitutes a valid arbitration clause or not.
Upon hearing the submissions made by the Counsel for the Respondent Faiszer Musthapha PC, the Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices Shirani Tilakawardane, Rohini Marasinghe and Priyasath Dep dismissed the application of the Petitioner 2.1 with Justice Marasinghe dissenting.
