2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

[Home][Databases][WorldLaw][MultidatabaseSearch][Help][Feedback]

EnglandandWalesHighCourt
(ChanceryDivision)Decisions
Youarehere:BAILII>>Databases>>EnglandandWalesHighCourt(ChanceryDivision)Decisions>>BeaHotels
NVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)
URL:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html
Citeas:[2007]2Lloyd'sRep493,[2007]1CLC920,[2007]EWHC1363(Comm),[2007]ArbLR8

[Newsearch][Context ][Viewwithouthighlighting][PrintableRTFversion][Help]
NeutralCitationNumber:[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)
CaseNo:2006Folio1103

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUSTICE
QUEEN'SBENCHDIVISION
COMMERCIALCOURT
RoyalCourtsofJustice
Strand,London,WC2A2LL
12/06/2007

Before:
THEHONOURABLEMRJUSTICECOOKE
____________________
Between:

BEAHotels N V
and
BellwayLLC

Claimant
Defendant

____________________
MrPMcGrath(instructedbyBerwinLeightonPaisner)fortheClaimant
MrJLockeyQC(instructedbyKennedys)fortheDefendant
Hearingdates:56June2007
____________________
HTMLVERSIONOFJUDGMENT
____________________
CrownCopyright
MrJusticeCooke:
Introduction
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=boo

1/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

1.Theclaimant( BEA )challengesthesubstantivejurisdictionofMrPeterLeaverQCas

arbitratorundersection67oftheArbitrationAct1996.Whilstitisacceptedthattherewasa
validarbitrationagreementandavalidappointmentofthearbitrator, BEA allegesthatthe
relevantarbitrationagreementwasrepudiatedbythedefendant( Bellway )whenthelatter
broughtproceedingsinIsraelon11April2006andthatthisrepudiationwasacceptedbyaletter
from BEA dated26April2006.
2.Thefactualbasisoftheeventssaidtoconstituterepudiationandacceptanceareessentially
undisputedandtheissuesturnonthesignificanceoftheIsraeliproceedingstowhichIhavejust
referred.ThiswasthesecondsetofproceedingsinTelAviv(towhichIshallreferasTelAviv
2),thefirstbeingbroughtby BEA andotherssome4yearsbefore(towhichIshallreferas
TelAviv1).ItisacceptedbybothpartiesthatEnglishlawisthegoverninglawofthe
arbitrationagreementbutexpertevidencefromIsraelilawyersintheformofwrittenreports
wasputbeforethecourttoassistitininterpretingthestatementsofcaseintheIsraelicourt
proceedingsandtheterminologyreferredtotherein.Itwasagreedbetweenthepartiesthat
neitherexpertwouldbecalledtogiveoralevidencebutthateachpartywouldbefreetomake
whateversubmissionsitconsideredappropriateinrelationtothereports.
3.Thebackgroundtothedisputearisesoutofaprivatisationprocessofstateshareholdingsin
Romania.Acompany,towhichIshallreferasBucaresti,whichownedthelargestresidential
and hotel complexinBucharest,wasstateowneduntil,byaseriesoftransactions,theright
topurchase66.18%ofthesharesinBucarestivestedinacompanytowhichIshallreferas
Domino.
4.MrRazinisamajorfigurein Bellway andhad,throughDomino,acquiredtherightto
purchasethesharesinBucaresti,originallyaspartofajointventurewithaMrShreyerwho
pulledoutofthearrangementsome710dayspriortothedeadlinesetbytheRomanian
authoritiesforpaymentoftherelevantpurchaseprice.AtthatpointMrRazinwasintroducedto
MrZisserandvariousmeetingstookplaceleadingtoaJointVentureTermSheetdated7
December2000(theTermSheet),whichwasexecutedby BEA,Bellway ,Desca
InvestmentsLtd(Desca)andKitedownInvestments&HoldingsLtd.MrRazinalsosignedas
guarantorof3specificobligationsof Bellway .Thepurchasewasdulycompletedbut
disputesarosebetweenthepartiestotheTermSheetandothersinrelationtoalleged
representationsinducingitsexecution,allegedcollateralorantecedentagreementswith
individualsandallegednonperformance.
5.Inproceedingscommencedby BEA and BEA EasternEuropeBV( BEA Eastern)
on10July2002inTelAviv1,thoseclaimantssuedMrRazinandMonilenEnterprises
Limited,butnot Bellway .Inthestatementofclaimandtheamendedstatementofclaim
allegationsweremadethatMrRazinwaspersonallyliablefortheobligationsundertakenby
Bellway intheTermSheet.TheallegationwasmadethatMrRazin,priortothesigningof
theTermSheetrepeatedlystatedto BEA thatheandhealonewasmakingacommitment
andassumingresponsibilitytowardsitandthattheuseofvariouscompanieswhichwereparties
totheTermSheetderivedsolelyfromtaxconsiderations.Allegationswerealsomadeoffalse
representationsinducing BEA toenterintotheTermSheet.Thedefencetothoseclaims
deniedanyliabilityonthepartofMrRazinsaveinrelationtotheobligationsof Bellway
underthethreeparticularclausesoftheTermSheetwherehewasspecificallyaguarantor.
TheseproceedingsinTelAviv1haveprogressedtotheextentthatcrossexaminationof
witnesseshaspartlytakenplaceanditisthoughtthatjudgmentmightbehandeddownbefore
theendof2007.
6.ThecentralschemeprovidedbytheTermSheetwasfor BEA tohold80%and Bellway
tohold20%ofaholdingcompany,Desca,whichwastobeanddidbecomethe100%ownerof
Domino.UndertheTermSheet,Descawastohavefivedirectorsappointedbythepartiespro
ratatotheirshareholdings.Itisallegedthatthe BEA appointeddirectorsheldadirectors'
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=boo

2/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

meetingofDesca,withoutnoticeorreferencetothe Bellway appointeddirectorand

resolvedtotransferandthentransferredallthesharesinDominoto BEA Eastern,which
wasasubsidiaryof BEA .InTelAviv1,thiswassaidtohavebeendonebywayof
mitigationofthelossanddamagesustainedfromthemisrepresentationsandbreachesof
agreementallegedlyeffectedbyMrRazinandMonilen.Itisalsoallegedthatthe Bellway
appointeddirectorand Bellway itselfwerethereafterexcludedfromanyinvolvementinthe
managementoftheBucaresti Hotel Apartments,theChinaRestaurantandotherBucaresti
assets,whichweremattersprovidedforundertheTermSheet.
TheArbitrationAgreement
7.Paragraph11oftheTermSheetincludedthefollowing:
"11.1Anydisputebetweenthe BEA and Bellway pertainingtoand/or
connectedwiththeagreementsforthemanagementofthe Hotel andthe
Apartment Hotel ,shallbereferredtoarbitrationbeforeMrAmiFederman.
11.2Anydisputebetweenthe BEA and Bellway pertainingtoanyother
matterarisingoutofand/orconnectedwiththisTermSheetshallbereferredto
arbitrationbeforeMrEliLandau.
11.3Intheeventthateitherorbothoftheabovearbitratorsareunwillingorunable
toactforanyreason,thenandinsucheventanalternativearbitratorshallbe
appointedbymutualconsentbetween BEA and Bellway ,failingwhich
suchalternativearbitratorshallbeappointedbythePresidentforthetimebeingof
theLondonCourtofInternationalArbitrationupontheapplicationofeitherparty.
11.4ThisParagraph11constitutesaseparateagreementtoarbitratewhichshall
survivetheterminationofthisTermSheetforanyreason."
Bellway 'sattemptstoarbitrate
8.InFebruary2003 Bellway sentaStatementofClaimtothenominatedarbitratorMr
Landau.Thefocusofthatclaimagainst BEA wastheallegedillegitimateandinvalid
transferofthesharesinDominoto BEA 'sassociatedcompany, BEA Eastern.Mr
Landauwasnotwillingtoaccepttheappointmentand Bellway thenappliedtotheTelAviv
courts,askingfortheappointmentofanIsraeliarbitrator.Afterinitialsuccess(thecourt
appointedProfHadariasarbitratoron19February2004andreappointed,followingfurther
argumentin2005), Bellway failedonappealandtheTelAvivDistrictCourt,on17January
2006,orderedthepartiestoapplytotheLCIAtoappointanarbitrator,holdingthattherewas
noreasonfortheagreedproceduresetoutinclause11nottobeadopted.
9. Bellway thensentarequestforarbitrationtotheLCIAon5Februaryanddespite
objectionsfrom BEA ,theLCIACourtappointedMrLeaverassolearbitratoron20March
2006,afterprolongedexchangesbetweenthepartiesandtheLCIAinwhich Bellway
soughttheappointmentofanarbitrator(withanexpressedpreferenceforanIsraeli)whilst
BEA attemptedtostalltheappointmentofanarbitratorortostaythearbitrationpendingthe
conclusionofTelAviv1.AsthepartiesagreedLCIARules,theLCIAdeterminedthattheseat
oftheArbitrationwasLondonbutwithoutprejudicetoanydecisionofthearbitratorastothe
locationatwhichevidencemightbeheard.Questionsoflisalibipendenswerelefttohimto
decide,although,intheeventhehadtodeterminethechallengetohisjurisdictionfirst(the
matterwhichisnowbeforethisCourt).EvidenceinthearbitrationisduetobeheardinTel
Avivlaterintheyear.
TheSecondIsraeliProceedings(TelAviv2)
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=boo

3/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

10.On11April2006MrRazin, Bellway andMonilencommencedproceedingsinTelAviv

againstMrZisser,amajorfigurein BEA ,ElscintLimited,acompanycontrolledbyMr
Zisserandtheparentcompanyof BEA ,MrsLevin(PresidentofElscintandaDirectorof
Desca),MrLevin(VicePresidentofthegroupwhichcontrols BEA andaDirectorof
Desca),MrRonsmans(ChiefExecutiveOfficerof BEA,BEA EasternandaDirectorof
Desca),MrPap(aDirectorofDesca), BEA and BEA Eastern(whichnowultimately
ownedtheBucarestisharesthroughDomino).Theseproceedingsincludeanumberofdifferent
claimswhichwerethesubjectofsomeanalysisbeforemeinthecontextofthealleged
repudiationofthearbitrationagreement. Bellway soughttohaveTelAviv2consolidated
withTelAviv1butthecourtrefusedtoallowthis.TelAviv2hasnotproceededveryfar
beyondthestatementofcase(ParticularsofClaim)servedon11April2006.
RepudiationoftheArbitration
11.TheonlyissuewhichIhavetodecide(andwhichthearbitratorhasalreadydecided)iswhether
ornotthecommencementandserviceoftheTelAviv2proceedingsamountstoarepudiation
ofthearbitrationagreementrenderingthearbitratordevoidofjurisdiction.Itisacceptedthatif
thisconstitutedarepudiation,theletterfrom BEA 'ssolicitorswasapttoacceptit.The
proceedingsbeforethiscourt,asiscommonground,takeplacebywayofarehearing.New
evidencehasbeenputbeforethecourtwhichwasnotavailablebeforethearbitratorintheshape
ofexpertevidencefromIsraelilawyers,whichwaslimitedinitspurpose.Thecourtapproaches
thematterdenovo,althoughreferencewasmadetothearbitrator'sreasoninginthecourseof
argument.
12.Thelawwithregardtorepudiationofanarbitrationagreementwasnotseriouslyindispute.Itis
clearthatwhat BEA needstoshowisarepudiationoftheagreementtoreferthe
BEA/Bellway disputetoMrPeterLeaverQC,ratherthansimplytheclause11agreementto
arbitrate.Theclaimismadethat,bypursuingclaimsagainst BEA intheIsraeli
proceedings, Bellway evincedanintentionnottobeboundbytheagreementtoreferthose
claimstotheLCIAarbitration.
13.Inordertoshowarepudiationofthatagreementtorefer,itwasnotdisputedthat BEA
wouldhavetoshowthat Bellway evincedanintentionnolongertobeboundbythat
agreementandthat Bellway 'sconductwouldhavetobesuchthatareasonableperson,in
BEA 'sshoes,wouldunderstand Bellway tobesayingthatitwasnotpreparedtocontinue
withthereference.Itwascommongroundthatitwasnotrepudiatorymerelytobring
proceedingsinbreachofanarbitrationagreement,eveniftheclaimspursuedinthose
proceedingswereplainlyoneswhichweresubjecttothearbitrationagreement.Itwas
undisputedthatabreachofanarbitrationagreementbybringingotherproceedingswasonly
repudiatoryifitwasdoneincircumstancesthatshowedthatthepartyinquestionnolonger
intendedtobeboundtoarbitrate.Itwasalsoagreedthatsuchanintentioncouldnotlightlybe
inferredandcouldonlybeinferredfromconductwhichwasclearandunequivocal.Iftherewas
someotherreasonforthebreachingofproceedingsitwouldbehardtoinferthattheparty
bringingthemintendedtorenounceitsobligationtoarbitrate.
14.Thus,iftheconductofthatpartyinallthesurroundingcircumstancesdidnotrevealaclear
intentionnottobeboundbytheagreementtorefertheclaimsinquestiontoarbitration,itcould
notbesaidthatthearbitrationagreementorreferencehadbeenrepudiated.Ifitwasclearthat
thepartyintendedtopursuethearbitration,againtherecouldbenorepudiation.WhilstMr
McGrathfor BEA contendedthat,if Bellway wasseekingtorunthesameclaims
against BEA inboththearbitrationandinTelAviv2,thiswouldamounttorepudiation,
becauserunningtheclaimsinTelAvivwasinconsistentwitharbitratingthem,itisclearthat
thiscouldnotamounttoarenunciationorrepudiationoftheagreementtorefer,sincethe
intentionexpressedwastocontinuewiththearbitration,albeitalongsideotherlitigation.
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=boo

4/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

15.Whilstanumberofauthoritieswerereferredtointheskeletonarguments,intheendIwas
referredonlytothedecisionsofLloydJ(ashethenwas)intheMercanaut[1980]2Lloyds
Reports183andtheGoldenAnne[1984]2LloydsReports489wherethearbitration
agreementswerebreachedbutthecourtconcludedthatthebreachwasnotrepudiatorybecause
therewassomeexplanationforbringingthecourtproceedingswhichinturnmeantthatthe
courtcouldnotinferanintentiontorepudiate.
16.ItisinthiscontextthatattentionmustbepaidtotheParticularsofClaimservedby Bellway
inTelAviv2.
TheParticularsofClaiminTelAviv2
17.ThesecondsetofIsraeliproceedingswasinstitutedbyMrRazin, Bellway andMonilen
againsttheeightdefendantstowhomIhavealreadyreferredandDomino.Thenatureofthe
claimwasdescribedas"1.Contractualtorts.2.Issuingofdeclaratoryrelief".Inthepreamble
thethreeplaintiffssetouttheirintentiontoapplyforconsolidationoftheclaimwithTelAviv1,
whichwasdescribedas"afutileattemptby BEA and BEA Easterntocoverupa
blatantactoflarcenycommittedbythefirsteightdefendantsagainst Bellway 'sproperty".
Paragraphs3,4and5areofimportanceinthecontextoftheargument.Inthoseparagraphs
defendant7is BEA ,defendant8is BEA Easternandplaintiff2is Bellway .In
translationthoseparagraphsreadasfollows:
"3.Thisistheplacetonotethatdefendant7[ BEA ],whoknewthatplaintiff2[
Bellway ]wouldbefilingaclaimagainstitundertheaegisofanarbitrationas
requiredbyanagreementbetweentheparties,precededitandhurriedtotheCourt
withtheconcurrentclaim,whichisbaselessandunfounded,againstotherparties
whoareinvolvedinthissaga,whereithasomitteddefendant2[ BEA ]fromits
claimduetothearbitrationclauseincludedintheagreementbetweentheparties.
4.Thisisalsotheplacetonotethatatthetimeoffilingthisclaim(after3years
duringwhichthedefendantsdideverythingtheycouldtoobstruct Bellway in
clarifyingtheaffairthoroughly),legalproceedingsarebeingconductedbetween
plaintiff2anddefendant7undertheaegisoftheLondonCourtofInternational
Arbitration(*hereinafter:"LCIA").Accordingly,forthesakeofcaution,the
plaintiffsshallexpresslystatethatallthearguments,whetherofageneralor
specificnature,addressedbytheplaintiffsagainstthedefendants,cannotinclude
theargumentsofplaintiff2[ Bellway ]againstdefendant7[ BEA ],
argumentswhicharetobeinvestigatedundertheaegisoftheLCIA.
5.Itisnotfornothingthatthisclaimisdeliberatelybeingfiled3yearsafterthe
proceedingswereinstitutedintheconcurrentclaim.Plaintiff2[ Bellway ],who
foughtformorethanthreeyearstohaveanarbitratorappointedinthedispute
betweenitanddefendant7[ BEA ],withthelatterdoingeverythingitcould
preventtheappointmentofsuchanarbitrator,only'managed'inthelastfewdaysto
haveanarbitratorappointedinthisaffairanEnglisharbitrator,basedinLondon
andappointedbytheLCIA.Now,whenithastranspiredthatthedisputeisbeing
conductedbetweensomeoftheinvolvedpartiesinLondon,thewayhasbeen
preparedforfilingthisclaiminIsraelagainsttheremainingpartieswhotookpart
inthisaffair.Inaddition,theplaintiffsrecentlyreceivedforthefirsttimethe
testimoniesandopinionsofthewitnessesandexpertsonbehalfofdefendants7and
8intheconcurrentclaimveryimportantmaterialwhichattests,loudandclear,to
theseverityoftheactsofallthedefendants,tothepersonalanddirectinvolvement
ofeachandeveryoneoftheminthisaffair,partieswhoarenotpartytothe
aforementionedarbitrationclause,andunderlinesthetruthoftheplaintiffs'outcry
duetothelarcenyoftheirsharesliterallydaylightrobberyanargumentthatwill
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=boo

5/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

befullyelaboratedinthisstatementofclaim."
18.Whilstthereweresmalldifferencesinvarioustranslationsputforwardbythepartiesthe
substanceoftheparagraphsremainedthesame.Themessageofparagraphs3,4and5isclearly
totheeffectthat BEA hassoughttoavoidarbitration,that Bellway hasfor3years
foughttohavearbitration,andthatTelAviv2expresslyexcludes Bellway 'sclaimsagainst
BEA whicharetobepursuedinthearbitration.Furthermore,asthearbitrationislimitedto
"someoftheinvolvedpartiesinLondon"theclaiminIsraelistotakeeffectagainstthe
remainingpartieswhowereinvolvedintheeventsatissuebutarenotpartiestothearbitration.
(Itissuggestedby Bellway thattheword"arguments",whichappearstwiceinthelast
sentenceofparagraph4,wouldbebettertranslated"claims").
19.Whetherornot Bellway hadunequivocallypursuedthequestionofarbitrationover3years
orhadpursuedarbitrationinadifferentformattothatenvisagedbyclause11oftheTerm
Sheet,byseekingtoobtainanappointmentofanIsraeliarbitratorbytheTelAviv,courtis
nothingtothepoint.BythetimethattheParticularsofClaimwereservedinApril2006,
Bellway hadjustspent2monthsfollowingthedecisionoftheTelAvivCourtthatLCIA
proceduresshouldbefollowed,infollowingthoseprocedures,commencingarbitrationby
makingaRequesttotheLCIAandobtainingtheappointmentofanarbitratorinthefaceof
continuingoppositionanddelayfrom BEA .Atthisstage Bellway wasgivingevery
indicationthatitwantedtoproceedwiththearbitrationagainst BEA .
20.Some3weeksafterthearbitratorwhich Bellway soughthadbeenappointed, Bellway
servedtheParticularsofClaiminTelAviv2whichcontainedtheseparagraphs.Inmy
judgment,what Bellway wasunequivocallysayinginparagraphs35ofthisstatementof
casewasthatitwasnotusingtheTelAvivproceedingstopursueanyclaimsby Bellway
against BEA ,sincethoseclaimsweretoberesolvedwithinthecontextofthearbitration,
butwasnowinaposition,havingcommencedarbitrationagainst BEA ,topursuetheother
defendantsinTelAvivinrespectofthesamehistoryofevents.Icannotseethatthese
paragraphscanbearanyotherconstructionandtheeffectoftheminthePreambletothe
Particularsisthattherestofthepleadingmustbereadsubjecttoit.
21.Inthesecircumstances,unlessthatstatementof Bellway 'sintentiontopursueitsclaims
against BEA intheLCIAarbitrationwasuntrue,itisnotpossibletosaythat Bellway ,
inservingthispleading,wasunequivocallystatingthatitdidnotintendtoabidebythe
agreementthattheseclaimsshouldbedeterminedinthearbitration.Thereisnobasisforany
suchassertionanditwasnotmade.Thefurthestthat BEA waspreparedtogowastosay
that Bellway wastryingtohaveitsclaimsheardagainst BEA inbothfora,(TelAviv
andthearbitration). BEA saiditwasnotamatterofsubjectiveintention,butaquestionof
whattheconductof Bellway inpursuingclaimsinTelAvivshowedandifthelaterclaims
includedclaimsagainst BEA ,thenobjectivelytheremustbearepudiation,becausethe
runningofsuchclaimsinTelAvivwasinconsistentwithhavingthemdeterminedinarbitration.
22. BEA 'scaseisthat BEA hasbeenjoinedasadefendantinTelAviv2andthatthe
balanceofthestatementofcasesetsoutsomeclaimsagainst BEA alonewhichtheTel
Avivcourtwouldbeboundtodetermineandwhichwouldconstituteresjudicataorissue
estoppelasbetween BEA and Bellway .Itissaidthatparagraphs35arenottobegiven
undueweightandthattheymustbereadinthecontextofthestatementofcaseasawhole
whichpursuescontractualclaimswhichcanonlybeclaimsmadeby Bellway against
BEA .Itissaidthat,wheresuchclaimsareclearlymade,paragraphs4and5ofthe
ParticularsofClaimare,toallintentsandpurposesineffective.Onatrueconstruction,theycan
onlyhaveapplicationwherethereisameasureofdoubtwhetheraclaimisbeingpursued
against BEA orothers,butcanhavenoimpactwhereitisclearthataclaimisbeing
pursuedagainst BEA ,whichmustbethepositionwherethereisnootherpotential
defendanttotheclaiminquestion.Because BEA isjoinedasadefendant,theIsraeliCourt
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=boo

6/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

isinvestedwiththedutyofdeterminingthoseclaimsregardlessofparagraphs35ofthe
pleading.
23.Iamunabletoaccept BEA 'ssubmissions.EveniftheParticularsofClaiminTelAviv2
containedaseriesofclaimswhichonanalysiscouldonlybevestedin Bellway andrun
against BEA ,sothatthereisapparentinconsistencybetweenparagraphs35andthelater
pleadedclaimsof Bellway against BEA ,theeffectofparagraphs35,incomingatthe
beginningofthepleadingandexplainingtheintentionofthepleader,isexpresslyand
specificallytodisavowanyclaimof Bellway against BEA whichfallswithinthe
arbitrationagreement.Whateverinconsistenciesthereaftermightappear,thecontrolling
paragraphsinthePreambletothepleadinggovernthepositionforallpurposes,withaclearly
expressedintentiontopursuesuchclaimsinarbitrationandnotinTelAviv2.Noreasonable
personin BEA 'spositioncouldhavethoughtthat Bellway was,inthispleading,
exhibitinganintentionnottopursueitsclaimsagainst BEA inarbitration.Theexpressed
intentionwastocomplementthearbitrationbyhavingthoseclaimsdeterminedinTelAviv
whichcouldnotbedecidedinthearbitration,essentiallybecausetherelevantplaintiffor
defendantwasnotapartytothearbitrationagreement.
24. BEA 'scaseonrepudiationcannottherefore,inmyjudgment,succeed.Farfromtherebeing
anunequivocalevincingofanintentionnottobeboundbytheagreementtorefer,thereis,in
theseparagraphsinthepreamble,anunequivocalexpressionofanintentiontobeboundbythat
agreementandifanythingappearselsewhereinthepleadingwhichcouldthrowthatintodoubt,
thepositionatbestfor BEA 'sargumentswouldbeambiguous,whichwouldnotbeenough
forittoshowanunequivocalintentionnottobeboundwhichisnecessarytoshowa
renunciation/repudiation.
25.Thechallengetothearbitrator'sjurisdictionmustthereforefailand BEA 'sapplicationunder
s67oftheArbitrationActmustbedismissed.
26.Whilstconductaftertheallegedacceptanceoftherepudiationisirrelevant,itisnoteworthythat
BEA neversoughtanyclarificationof Bellway 'spositionwithregardtotheforumfor
determinationofitsclaimsagainst BEA noreverappliedtotheIsraeliCourtforastayof
suchclaims,insofarastheyweretobefoundinTelAviv2.Insteaditappliedon27April2006
totheArbitratorforarulingthatthearbitrationagreementhadbeenrepudiated.Itisinmy
judgmentplainthat,fortacticalreasons, BEA wishestoavoidarbitrationorattheveryleast
delayanyarbitrationuntiltheconclusionofTelAviv1,whichdoesnotconcernclaimsagainst
Bellway or Bellway claimsagainst BEA .Thewholeof BEA 'sconduct,
includingitspursuitofitsfailedlisalibipendensapplicationtotheArbitratorfollowinghis
rulingagainstitonthejurisdictionapplication,bearsthisout.Itiscleartome,fromallthe
evidence,that BEA couldnothavesubjectivelythoughtthat Bellway intendednotto
pursueitsclaimsagainst BEA intheLCIAarbitration,whilsttheobjectivepositionisplain,
asIhavealreadyheld.
27. Bellway furtherarguedthatthelaterclaimssetoutintheParticularsofClaimwere,on
properanalysis,claimsbyoragainstpartiestotheactionotherthan Bellway or BEA ,
asthecasemightbe,oratworstclaimswhichwerenotagainst BEA alone,sothatthere
wasnoinconsistencybetweenparagraphs35andthelaterpartsofthestatementofcase,
becausenoclaimswerebeingpursuedby Bellway against BEA assuch.Insuchacase,
notonlywouldparagraphs35beeffectivetoexcludeclaimsby Bellway against BEA
fromtheclaimsbeforetheIsraeliCourt,buttherecouldinanyeventbenobreachofthe
arbitrationagreementinservingtheParticularsofClaimatall,letalonearepudiatorybreach.
BreachoftheArbitrationAgreement.
28.SectionBofthestatementofcaseidentifiesthepartiestotheproceedings.MrZisseris
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=boo

7/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

identifiedasanIsraelibusinessmanwhocontrols BEA throughElscintLimitedandas"the

onepullingallthestringsintheaffairbeingdiscussedhere".Elscintisdescribedasan
AmericanpubliccompanycontrolledbyMrZisser.MsLevinisdescribedasthePresidentof
ElscintandMrZisser'sBusinessManager,servingashisrepresentativeandloyalassistantin
everythingrelatingtothetransactionwhichisthesubjectoftheclaim.Additionallysheis
describedasservingatalltimesrelevanttothisactionasDirectorofDesca,onbehalfof
BEA .MrLevinisdescribedastheChiefFinancialOfficerofthegroupofcompanies
controlling BEA andhandlingthefinancialaspectsofthetransactiononbehalfofMrZisser
andthecompanieshecontrols.InadditionhealsoservedasaDirectorofDescaonbehalfof
BEA .MrRonsmansisdescribedastheChiefExecutiveOfficerof BEA and BEA
EasternandasservingasaDirectorofDescaonbehalfof BEA whilstMrPapisalso
describedasaDirectorofDescaservingonbehalfof BEA.BEA isthendescribedasa
companywhichservedtheZissergroupintheengagementthatistheobjectoftheactionwhilst
BEA Easternisdescribedasbeingfullycontrolledby BEA andservingtheZisser
groupbythereceiptofthesharesstolenfromDesca.Dominoisdescribedasbeingfully
controlledbyDescaupuntilthetheftoftheshares.Thethrustofthepleading,amplified
elsewhereinit,isthatMrZissercontrolledallthecompaniesandindividualswhowere
involvedintheeventsinquestionandtheindividualsmentionedactedtoprocuretheeffecting
bythecompaniesofhisandtheirpurposes.Insodoingheandtheyactedtortiouslyandin
breachofstatutorydutywhilstputting BEA inbreachofcontract.
29.Relianceisplacedby BEA onparagraph18ofthepleadingwhichstatesthatwhere
argumentsareraisedinthepleadingagainst"thedefendants",thatmeansallthedefendants
exceptwheretheargumentsareexpresslydirectedagainstDomino. BEA pointsoutthat
throughoutmostofthepleadingthePlaintiffsarereferredtogenericallyas"thePlaintiffs"and
theDefendantsas"theDefendants",withoutdrawinganydistinctionbetweenthem,saveon
particularoccasionswhenthepleaderdeliberatelychoosestorefertooneormoreindividual
defendantsbytheirrespectivenumbersontheParticularsofClaimorbytheirrespectivenames.
Thusitissaidthatwherenodistinctionisdrawn,thepleaderhasdefinedwhoitisthatis
referredtoas"theDefendants",namelyallthedefendantsnumbered1to8,includingthe7th
Defendant, BEA .Whereverthisappellationisused,thereisthereforeaclaimagainst
BEA .
30.InSectionCwhichisheaded"Introduction"theclaimissaidtoconcerna"flagrantactof
larcenyperpetratedbythedefendantsagainstthepropertyof Bellway whichhadentered
with BEA intoanagreementthatconstitutedtheobjectoftheclaim".Allthefirst8
defendantsarethereforeallegedtobeinvolved.Paragraph20ofthepleadingstatesthatthese
defendantseffectedthetheftof Bellway 'sindirectholdinginDominoattheinstanceofMr
ZisserandthatthiswasdonebypassinganinvalidresolutionattheDescaBoardofDirectors
withouttheconsentof Bellway orMrRazinitsowneranditsappointedDirectorofDesca.
Thiswassaidtobecontrarytotheagreement"betweentheparties".Bythetermsofthe
resolutionDesca'ssharesinDominoweretransferredto BEA Eastern.
31.Paragraph22allegesthatthetheftwasperpetratedasanactofconspiracyandallegesthat
BEA and BEA EasternhaveadmittedthatinTelAviv1,inevidencefiledontheir
behalf.ItisclearfromthissectionofthepleadingthatallthedefendantsexceptDominoare
allegedtohavebeeninvolvedinaconspiracytodeprive Bellway ofitssharesinDomino
andthatMrZisserwastheinstigatorandleadfigureinthatconspiracy,actingthroughorin
conjunctionwith BEA andElscint(hiscreaturecompanies)andtheindividualdirectorsof
Descaappointedby BEA whopassedtheresolutiontotransferthesharesto BEA
Eastern.Thisisamplifiedelsewhereinthepleadingwheretheconspiracyreferredtoin
paragraph22issaidtohavebeeninitiatedbyMrZisser(paragraph20)andthusalsoby BEA
(paragraph73)andresultedinallofthefirst8defendantsactinginconcerttostealDesca's
sharesinDomino(paragraph92)thuscircumventingtheprovisionsofclause7oftheTerm
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=boo

8/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

Sheetand Bellway 'srightoffirstrefusaltoacquiretheDescasharesbeforeanytransferwas

made.Thusallthedefendants,saveDominoaresaidtohave"walkedallovertheprovisionsof
theTermSheet".
32.AtSectionD(5)itispleadedthat" BEA andZisserdecidedtoembarkonaseriesofactions,
judicialandother,whoseobjectwassolelytounfairlygaincontrolof Bellway 'ssharein
thistransaction,whiledeprivingitofitsrightsandassetsundertheagreement".Paragraph74
76thensetouttheallegationthat BEA orapartyonitsbehalfconvenedanostensibleboard
meetingofDescaandthatthe2nd,3rd,4thand5thdefendants,MrLevin,MrsLevin,Mr
RonsmanandMrPapattendedthatmeetingas BEA Directors(withoutanynotificationto
MrRazinas Bellway 'sDirector)andpassedtheresolutiontotransferthesharesinDomino
to BEA Eastern.ItisthenpleadedthatthiswasdoneinbreachofClause6oftheTerm
Sheet,thatthetransferwascarriedoutimproperly,withoutauthority,contrarytolawandthat
thisconstitutedmistreatmentanddeprivationof Bellway 'sminorityshareholdingand
"flagrantlarcenyof Bellway 'sassetsandeliminationofitsrightstoprofitsderivedfrom
Bucaresti'sassets".Itisallegedthattheresolutionwaspassedcontrarytocompanylawin
Cyprus,thecountryinwhichDescawasregisteredwiththeresultthattheresolutionwasnull
andvoid.
33.Paragraphs85and86ofthepleadingadditionallyallege BEA 'spreventionofBucarestiand
Bellway enteringintoamanagementagreementfortheapartment hotel ,contraryto
clause9.4oftheTermSheetanddeprivationofrevenueswhichwouldhavebeenearnedby
Bellway resultingfromjointmanagementoftheChinaRestaurantandotherBucarestiassets
contrarytoclause9.5.
34.AtSectionEofthepleading Bellway setout"thecausesoftheclaimagainstthe
defendants".InthatsectionMrZisseralonewassaidtobetheprimaryactiveplayerinthe
eventsandthatalltheactionsperformedbyanyoftheotherdefendantsweredoneonhisdirect
instructions.TheindividualdefendantswereagaindescribedasbeingunderthecontrolofMr
ZisserandbeinginvolvedasDirectorsofDescaintheunlawfultransferoftheDominoshares.
35.Paragraph134setsout"thelegalarguments"inrelationtotheDefendants'"breachesof
statutoryprovisions".Inparagraph134.3and134.7particulardefendantsareidentifiedbut
elsewheretheyaresimplyreferredtogenericallyas"thedefendants"which,inaccordancewith
theearlierdefinitionsparagraph,meansthe1st8thdefendants.
i)ThereisaclaimforbreachoftheUnjustEnrichmentActbythelarcenyof Bellway 's
sharesinDomino.Thisclaimrequiresthedefendantstoprocurethereturnofthesharesby
BEA Eastern(to Bellway orDesca)whilstseekingadeclarationthat Bellway isthe
lawfulownerof20%ofthoseshares.Thatclaimimpleadsotherdefendantsthan BEA who
wereinvolvedintheallegedtheftoftheshareswhobetweenthemcouldcontrol BEA and
actedatMrZisser'sinstanceinpassingthechallengedDescaresolution.
ii)Aclaimismadethat"thedefendants'conductresultedinthedeprivationof Bellway 's
rightsasashareholder"inDesca,invokingthecourt'sauthorityundersection191ofthe
CompaniesAct.This,Ifind,isaclaimmadeagainsttheDirectorsofDescafor"unfair
prejudice"aformofminorityshareholderreliefagainsttheDirectorsresponsible,asexplained
byProfessorGosheninhisreport.
iii)Aclaimismadeagainstthefirst5defendantsforbreachoftheprovisionsofsection425of
theCriminalJusticeActonthebasisoffraudandbreachoftrustinacorporation.Thisisa
claimagainstDirectorsandElscintwhichowns BEA ,inthiscaseforbreachoffiduciary
duty.Itmaybethatthe2nddefendanthasbeenwronglyincludedandthe6thdefendant
wronglyexcluded,butplainly BEA isitselfnotimpleadedbythispartoftheclaim.
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=boo

9/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

iv)ThePlaintiffsclaimthatthedefendantsbreachedtheprovisionsofsection52oftheTorts
Order(NewVersion)pertainingtoembezzlementbytheimpropersharetransfer.Thisclaim
onceagainimpleadstheDirectorsofDescaandothersinvolvedintheactsinquestion.
v )Inparagraph134.5ofthepleadingtheclaimismadethatthedefendantscontravenedthe
provisionsofsection39oftheContractsAct(GeneralPart)whenbreachingtheprovisionsof
theagreement(meaningtheTermSheet)inimproperlyconveningtheboardmeetingandacting
tostealtheshares,infailingtocomplywithclause6.3oftheTermSheetwithregardto hotel
renovationandfailingtorepaytheMonilendebtinaccordancewithaloanagreementof26
June2001. BEA 'ssubmissionwasthatthiswasaclearcontractualclaimwhichcouldonly
bemadeagainst BEA andnobodyelse.
vi)Inparagraph134.6,theplaintiffsclaimthatclauses9.4and9.5oftheTermSheetentitled
Bellway tosignamanagementagreementwithBucarestifortheapartment hotel andtoa
shareinthemanagementprofitsoftheChinarestaurantandotherBucarestiassets.Specific
performancewasclaimedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection2oftheContractsAct
(RemediesforBreachofContract).Onceagain BEA maintainsthatthiswasaclearclaim
forbreachofcontactwhichcouldonlyariseagainst BEA .
vii)ItisalsoallegedthatElscintbreachedtheprovisionsofsection35oftheTortsOrder(New
Version)whenitreportedtotheauthoritiesthatithadpurchasedBucarestiforanamountwhich
didnotmatchthetruepurchasevalue.Thisclaimisexpresslynotmadeagainst BEA .
viii)Thereisthenacatchallsubparagraphinwhichitisstatedthattheplaintiffswouldargue
thatthedefendantsbreachedtheprovisionsofsection63oftheTortsOrder(NewVersion)
whichrelatestoviolationofstatutoryduty,whentheyfailedtofulfilthedutiesimposedon
thempursuanttothevariousstatutesreferredtointheprevious7subparagraphs.
36. BEA 'sargumentfocusedontheparticularparagraphsinthepleadingwhichalleged
breachesofclause6.3,9.4and9.5oftheTermSheet,assetoutinsubparagraphs( v )and
(vi)ofthepreviousparagraphofthisjudgment.Reliancewasalsoplaceduponparagraphs136
139ofthepleading,whilstsubmittingthatitwascontractualreliefwhichwasbeingsoughtin
eachcase.
37.What BEA overlookhoweverintheirsubmissions,isthatthethrustofthepleadingistothe
effectthatMrZisserisresponsiblefortheactsof BEA ,asitissaidtobehiscreature
companywhilstalltheotherindividualsandentitiesareequallyunderhiscontrolaspartofhis
Group.AnyclaimofabreachoftheTermSheetthereforeisnotsimplyaclaimagainst BEA
forbreachofcontractbutaclaimagainstMrZisserandtheotherdefendants(otherthan
BEA andDomino)fortheiractionsastortiousorstatutorybreachofdutyinrespectofthe
selfsamebreach.
38.WhetherornotsuchaclaimisalsovestedinMrRazin, Bellway has,accordingtoProfessor
Goshen,aclaimagainstMrZisserforcausing,andagainsttheotherdefendantsforassistingin,
thebreachoftheagreementbetween Bellway and BEA asbreachesofstatutorydutyor
tort.WhilstProfessorBeincontendedthataclaimforbreachofcontractwasdifferentfroma
claimforinducingbreachofcontractorassistinginabreachofcontractandshouldbe
distinctlypleaded,itisclearfromtheoveralltenorofthepleadingandfromthereliefsought
thattheplaintiffs,whether Bellway orMrRazin,areseekingordersofthecourttoprocure
thefulfilmentbytheDefendantsof BEA 'scontractualobligationsbecausetheyareina
positiontoactfor BEA and/orDescaand/orDominoortoclaimdamagesfortheirbreach
oftortiousorstatutoryduty.Thusanapplicationismadetothecourtinthepleading:under
paragraph136todeclarethat Bellway isthelawfulowner(againsttheworld)of20%of
Dominoshares(throughDesca)underparagraph137torulethattheDefendantsbreachedand
oractedtobreachtheTermSheetandfailedtorepaytheloandueto Bellway from
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=bo

10/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

Dominounderparagraph138toenforcetheLoanAgreementagainstDominoandunder
paragraph139ofthepleadingfortheenforcementoftheagreementbetweentheparties,
requiringthedefendantstoactsothatBucarestisignsamanagementagreementwith
Bellway ortheapartment hotel andtheChinarestaurantandotherBucarestiassets.
39.Whereparagraph134.5specificallyallegestheimproperconveningoftheDescaBoard
MeetingandtheimpropertransferofsharesbytheDescaDirectors,alsocomplainingofthe
failuretocomplywiththeprovisionsoftheTermSheetfor hotel renovation,thosematters
layinthehandsofthe BEA Directorswhopassedaresolutiontoclosedownthe hotel
forthatpurpose,assetoutinparagraph106ofthepleading.Theignoringoftherelatedparty
transactionprovisionsintheTermSheetwassomethingcarriedoutbythe BEA appointed
DescaDirectors,onceagainwithoutreferencetothe Bellway appointedDirectorata
meetingwhichhadbeenimproperlyconvened.Itisclearagainthatthe"they"referredtoin
paragraph134.5mustincludetheindividualdefendantswhowereresponsiblefortheBoard
MeetingsandBoarddecisionsinquestionandforDomino'sfailuretorepaythedebttoMonilen
or Bellway seeparagraph134.5,137and138.
40.Inparagraph134.6thecomplaintismadeaboutthefailuretosignthemanagementagreement
ortojointlyshareprofitsofmanagement,matterswhichlayinthehandsofMrZisserandthe
individualdefendantswhoweredirectorsof BEA and/orDescaandthuscontrolled BEA
andDominoandtheactualeffectuationofthesematters.
41.Thusparagraphs134.5and134.6arenotclaimssolelymadeagainst BEA .
42.Whilstthebodyofthepleadingcouldbereadasincludingcontractclaimsby Bellway
against BEA ,theeffectofparagraphs35ofthepleadingisspecificallytoexcludesuch
claimsfromTelAviv2.WhilsttherewasadifferenceofviewbetweentheexpertsonIsraeli
lawinrelationtotheimpactoftheseparagraphs,norelevantcanonsofconstructionwereput
forwardformetotakeintoaccountinconsideringthelanguageused.Icanseenoinconsistency
inapleadingwhichsetsoutclaimswhereanumberofdefendantsaresaidtobejointlyor
severallyliablebutwheresomeofthoseclaimsarespecificallynotpursuedagainstone
particulardefendant.
43.Inthiscontext,thereisnodifficultyinreadingparagraphs35asdoingwhattheysaytheydo,
namelyexcludingfromthedeterminationoftheIsraelicourtanyissuesbetween Bellway
and BEA whicharetobedeterminedinarbitration.Thereisnoinconsistencybetweenthe
balanceofthepleadingasformulatedandthoseparagraphs.Thoseparagraphsgovernthe
readingoftherestofthepleadingsothat,although BEA isnamedasadefendant,noclaim
isbeingpursuedby Bellway against BEA inTelAviv2whichshouldproperlybe
arbitrated.
44.TherewasmuchdisputeastowhetherornotMrRazinwasinthepleadingmakingapersonal
claimagainst BEA incontract,since BEA contendedthatinnopartofthepleadingis
thereanyreferencetocontractobligationsbeingowedtohimpersonally,asopposedto
Bellway.Bellway maintainedthataclaimwasbeingmadebyMrRazinandthatthiswas
partoftheexplanationforthepresenceof BEA asadefendant.WhilstinTelAviv1,
BEA allegedaclaimagainstMrRazinpersonally,thelatterhasalwaysmaintainedthathis
onlyliabilityto BEA wasasguarantorof3particularobligationssetoutintheTermSheet.
Thisisreiteratedinthepleadingandnowhereinparagraphs5372ofthepleadinginTelAviv2
isthatpositionchangedorisitsuggestedthatthereareanygroundsforapersonalclaimbyhim
against BEA .
45.UnderSectionD(4),headed"theAgreementbetweentheParties",itisallegedthatthemain
pointsofagreementreachedinnegotiationson7and8DecemberweresummarisedintheTerm
Sheetdated7December,althoughsomechangeswerethereaftermadetothestructureofthe
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=bo

11/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

transactionassetouttherein.Atparagraph66.8,theplaintiffscaseissetoutthatMrRazinonly
assumedresponsibilityasguarantorofthreeof Bellway 'sobligations,whilstatparagraph
68itwasstressedthatMrZisserwasnotonlyinvolvedineachandeverystageofthe
transactionbutmadeallthedecisionsrequiredandthateveryclauseincludedintheTermSheet
wasformulatedandagreedbyhimandeverythingthatwasdoneinthetransactionwasdone
withhisapproval.
46.Paragraphs56and57setoutanagreement,priortotheTermSheet,onthemainpointsofthe
transactionbetweenMrRazinandMrZisser,butnotanagreementbetweenMrRazinand
BEA .Thereis,inmyjudgment,nobasispleadedforanypersonalcontractclaimbyMr
Razinagainst BEA ,althoughMrRazinand Bellway maketortclaimsagainstMrZisser
andothers.
47.Onthefaceofthepleading,MrRazinhasaclaiminconspiracyagainst BEA andtheother
Defendantsinrespectofhisowninterests(andunderIsraelilawaccordingtoProfGoshen)and
hisinterestsincludehiscontrolof Bellway andMonilenandtheiremploymentbyhimas
pleadedinparagraph7ofthepleading.Hemaythereforebeabletoestablishpersonallossin
respectoftheconspiracywhichdeprived Bellway oftheDominosharesandthemoney
owingtoMonilenbyDomino,thoughnoneisexpresslypleaded.Monilentoohasaclaimin
conspiracyinrespectofthelosswhichisexpresslypleaded,namelythenonpaymentby
Dominoof$600,000plusinterest,which BEA andsomeoftheotherdefendantsbytheir
actionsin"stealing"DescaandcontrollingDominohaveprocured.Whilstthereisobvious
overlapinthelossclaimed,thatisnoreasonwhysuchaclaimcannotbebroughtbyMrRazin
andMolinenandthataloneissufficienttoexplainthepresenceof BEA asadefendant.
48.IfindthereforethatalthoughthepleadingassertsvariousclaimsbythePlaintiffsagainstmany
parties,noneofthoseclaims,asamatterofIsraelilaworlanguage,canproperlybesaidtobe
solelyaclaimby Bellway against BEA whichfellwithinthearbitrationagreement.
49.Furthermore,evenifsuchRazinorMonilenclaimsagainst BEA arenottobefoundinthe
pleading, BEA 'sinclusionasadefendantwouldstillnotbesufficienttooverride
paragraphs4and5ofthepleading.If,contrarytowhatIhaveheld,therearenoclaimsbeing
madeagainst BEA byanyPlaintiffotherthan Bellway ,ProfessorBeinmaintainedthat
theinclusionof BEA asadefendantmeantthattheIsraeliCourtwouldhavetodetermine
claimswhichweremadeagainstit.IamunabletoacceptProfessorBein'sviewoftheeffectof
joining BEA asadefendantontheIsraeliCourtandthesuggestionthatthecourtwould
ignoreparagraphs4and5anddetermine Bellway 'sclaimsagainst BEA regardless.
ProfessorGoshen'sviewwasthattheIsraelicourtwouldreadthepleadinginthewaythatI
havehelditshouldberead,sothatitwouldnotconcernitselfwith Bellway 'sclaimsagainst
BEA ,evenifsuchwereincludedinthebodyofthepleading.Iaccepthisevidenceonthat,
asaccordingwithcommonsenseandwithwhatthepleadingsays.If BEA shouldwishto
seekclarificationintheIsraelicourtortostrikeoutorstayanyclaimwhichisarbitrable,it
wouldbeopentoittoapplytodoso.
50.Itissaidby BEA thattherearenoclaimsagainst BEA byPlaintiffsotherthan
Bellway andthismustmeanthat BEA isadefendantto BEA claimsinTelAviv2.
Evenif BEA wasrightinitspremise,thisreadstoomuchintotheinclusionof BEA as
aDefendant.Whethertheconceptofanominaldefendantagainstwhomnoclaimispursuedis
knownorunknownintheIsraelilegalsystem,theinclusionofadefendantwheretheplaintiff
saysintermsthatitisnotpursuingthatdefendant,cannotnegatethecleareschewalofsuch
claims.ItshouldbeborneinmindthatbothMonilenandMrRazinweresuedby BEA in
TelAviv1,andinparagraph1ofthepleading, Bellway soughtconsolidationofTelAviv1
andTelAviv2. BEA 'sinterestsareundoubtedlyaffectedbytheclaimsagainstother
defendantsandissuesdecidedinTelAviv2wouldimpactonitsinterests,whichmightwellbe
seenasgoodreasonforjoinder.
http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=bo

12/13

2/22/2016

BeaHotelsNVvBellwayLlc[2007]EWHC1363(Comm)(12June2007)

51.ProfessorBeingoessofarastosaythatdecisionsagainstthedefendantsotherthan BEA
couldorwouldconstituteresjudicataagainst BEA andthatthisinitselfmeansthatthereis
abreachofthearbitrationagreement.ThatdoesnotrepresentEnglishlawhowever. Bellway
cannotarbitrateagainstentitieswhicharenotpartytoanarbitrationagreementwithitandhas
nooptionbuttolitigateagainstthemwhilstpursuing BEA inarbitration.Ifissuesofres
judicataorissueestoppelariseinrespectofthefirstdeterminationbyeithertribunalof
overlappingissues,thatwillhavetobethesubjectofdeterminationbytherelevanttribunal
thereafterfacedwiththeproblem.Thiscannotgiverisetoanysuggestedbreachofthe
arbitrationagreementhowever,sinceitcanonlybethelawsuitofonepartytosuchan
arbitrationagreementagainstanothersuchpartywhichbreachesthatagreement,regardlessof
theconsequencesofotherstakingproceedings.
52.Thuswhere Bellway saysintermsthatitisnotpursuing BEA inTelAviv2,thereisno
basisforgainsayingthat,whatevertheexactformoftheclaimswhichappearthereafterinthe
pleading.Moreoverif Bellway shouldseektochangeitsstanceandpursuesuchclaims,it
wouldbeopento BEA toreferthemattertotheIsraelicourtwhichontheevidencebefore
mewouldnotallowdeparturefromthepleadeddisavowalofclaimsby Bellway against
BEA unlesstherelevantparties,bywordorconductagreedtothatcourse.Suchalater
courseofactionon Bellway 'spartwouldnothoweveraffectthecurrentpositionon
repudiationorbreach.
53.Sinceparagraphs35of Bellway 'sParticularsofClaimareeffectivetoexcludethe
arbitrableclaimsfromthedeterminationoftheIsraelicourt,Iholdthattherehasbeennobreach
oftheagreementtoarbitrate,letaloneanyrepudiatorybreach.
Conclusion
54.Forallthesereasons BEA 'sapplicationmustfailand,subjecttoanyspecialconsiderations
ofwhichIhavenotbeenmadeaware,costswillfollowtheevent.Iftherearespecial
circumstancestotakeintoaccount,nodoubtthepartieswillletmeknowandthemattercanbe
arguedattheformalhandingdownofthisjudgment.Ifnot,perhapsthepartiescouldagreea
formoforderwhichfollowsfrommydecision.
BAILII:CopyrightPolicy|Disclaimers|PrivacyPolicy|Feedback|DonatetoBAILII
URL:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html

http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1363.html&query=bea+and+hotels+and+v+and+bellway+and+llc&method=bo

13/13