King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KB-2025-001929 - [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB)

Fecha: 13-Nov-2025

Discussion: Part 62

Discussion: Part 62

29.

It is not disputed by the claimants that the defendant has provided evidence of having complied with the procedural steps specified in CPR 62.8. I judge that six chief points illustrate what the correct decision on this sub-issue should be:

(1)

The stay sought by the defendant is based on a statutory power founded on section 9 of the Act;

(2)

Section 9 is one of the mandatory provisions within the Act;

(3)

CPR Part 62 sets down procedural rules for arbitration claims: CPR 62.3 requires an application notice to be filed; CPR 62.8 specifies clear steps for valid section 9 stay applications;

(4)

CPR 62.8(4) makes specific provision for stay applications where, as here, there is dispute whether an arbitration contract has been concluded;

(5)

Given the detailed rules laid down in Part 62, it is unlikely that if a Part 11 application were also required for an arbitration-related stay application that there would be no reference to that additional requirement;

(6)

The defendant complied with the CPR 62.8 requirements.

30.

It seems to me unnecessarily duplicative to have to comply with the requirements of section 9 and Part 62 and also be obliged to make an application under Part 11. Instead, for my part, the stay application under section 9 was the appropriate course and the defendant complied with the CPR 62.3 and 62.8 procedural requirements.