Arbitral Digest

Matter

IOTA conseils SPRL v Baferton Trading LDT and M. [U] [B] [M]

  1. 8 January 2019France

    8 January 2019France

    Judgment of the Paris Regional Court case-management judge dated 8 January 2019

    Paris Regional Court

    Decision summary
    The case-management judge rejected M. [U] [B] [M]'s objection that the Paris Regional Court lacked jurisdiction in favor of an arbitral tribunal, holding that the arbitration clauses in the mission letters were not opposable to him personally.

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    M. [U] [B] [M]
    IOTA conseils SPRL
    Baferton Trading LDT
    Paris Regional Court

    9 months and 6 days later · 279 days

  2. 14 October 2019France

    14 October 2019France

    Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5, Chamber 10, dated 14 October 2019

    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5, Chamber 10

    Decision summary
    The Paris Court of Appeal rejected M. [U] [B] [M]'s appeal against the case-management order and held that the arbitration clauses in the mission letters were manifestly inapplicable to his claim-related dispute because he was not a party to those contracts.

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    M. [U] [B] [M]
    IOTA conseils SPRL
    Baferton Trading LDT
    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5, Chamber 10

    2 years, 11 months and 14 days later · 1080 days

  3. 28 September 2022France

    28 September 2022France

    Judgment of the French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, dated 28 September 2022

    French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber

    Case no.
    M 20-10.049
    Citation
    Arrêt n° 682 F-D
    Decision summary
    The Court of Cassation quashed the Paris Court of Appeal judgment in all its provisions without remand. Applying the principle that a court must decline jurisdiction unless an arbitration agreement is manifestly void or inapplicable, it held that the reasons given did not establish manifest inapplicability of the arbitration clauses, declared the Paris Regional Court incompetent, referred IOTA conseils to pursue another remedy, and rejected the claim for costs under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    Supporting details

    2 authorities · 10 participants
    M. [U] [B] [M]
    Representative
    SCP Waquet, Farge et Hazan (For: M. [U] [B] [M] · Baferton Trading LDT)
    IOTA conseils SPRL
    Representative
    SARL Ortscheidt (For: IOTA conseils SPRL)
    Baferton Trading LDT
    Representative
    SCP Waquet, Farge et Hazan (For: M. [U] [B] [M] · Baferton Trading LDT)
    French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber
    Advocate General
    M. Poirret
    Other
    Institutional administrator
    Mme Vignes

    Authorities cited

    2
    • French Code of Civil Procedure
      statute
    • French Judicial Organisation Code
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

IOTA conseils SPRL v Baferton Trading LDT and M. [U] [B] [M] · Matter