In Payward, Inc. and Others v. Chechetkin,[1] the Excessive Court docket of England and Wales refused the claimants’ declare for the enforcement of a US arbitration award in opposition to a UK-based client. The court docket dominated that enforcement of the award could be opposite to public coverage because it contravened key provisions of the Client Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and the Monetary Providers and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).
Background
Maxim Chechetkin introduced a declare within the English courts in opposition to Payward – which operates Kraken, a cryptocurrency change – for losses of greater than £600,000 he incurred while buying and selling on its change. His case was that Payward’s actions within the UK amounted to dealing in or arranging offers in investments, which constituted regulated actions that Payward was not authorised to hold on. Part 26 of the FSMA supplies that agreements made by an individual carrying on an authorised exercise with out authority to take action are unenforceable.
Payward’s phrases of service included an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be arbitrated in California underneath JAMS guidelines. In accordance with this provision, Payward introduced arbitral proceedings in California in respect of the dispute. A ultimate award was issued by the arbitrator denying Chechetkin’s declare for the compensation of his losses and enjoining Chechetkin from bringing a declare in opposition to Payward in court docket (both within the UK or one other jurisdiction).
As reported in this 11 July 2023 On the Report weblog put up, Payward then unsuccessfully utilized for a declaration that the English courts had no jurisdiction over Chechetkin’s declare, on the premise that parallel arbitration proceedings had taken place in California during which an award had been issued in Payward’s favour. Following that failed utility, Payward introduced a declare for enforcement of the arbitration award underneath part 101 of the Arbitration Act.
Chechetkin argued that enforcement of the award must be refused in accordance with part 103(3) of the Arbitration Act on the grounds that it will be opposite to public coverage. He argued that the CRA has the impact that the imposition of arbitration in California was unfair on him as a client and stifled his declare underneath the FSMA, opposite to public coverage.
The Excessive Court docket’s determination
The court docket refused to implement the arbitration award, discovering that enforcement would certainly be opposite to public coverage, because the award contravened provisions of the CRA and FSMA. The court docket got here to this conclusion as follows:
Chechetkin was a client underneath the Client Rights Act.
This discovering was in step with the Excessive Court docket’s earlier determination on its jurisdiction. Part 2(3) of the CRA defines a client as a person appearing for functions which might be ‘wholly or primarily exterior that particular person’s commerce, enterprise, craft or career’. The related time to satisfy this definition is on the time that the contract is concluded. On this case, that was when Chechetkin opened his account with Kraken. As Chechetkin is a lawyer, his buying and selling on Kraken was clearly exterior his commerce, enterprise, craft or career. He was, subsequently, a client underneath the CRA.
Chechetkin couldn’t have introduced his declare underneath the FSMA within the arbitration.
Payward argued that Chechetkin shouldn’t be allowed to pursue his declare underneath the FSMA within the English courts, because it had already been decided in opposition to him within the arbitration, and Chechetkin was subsequently estopped from pursuing a declare within the English courts when it might and may have been pursued within the arbitration.
The court docket rejected Payward’s arguments, discovering that:
- Because the arbitrator had repeatedly made it clear that she was in opposition to the appliance of any legislation apart from the legislation of California, there was no scope for Chechetkin to deliver the FSMA declare within the arbitration.
- An English court docket just isn’t sure by a tribunal’s determination by itself jurisdiction. The arbitrator’s discovering on this respect was subsequently irrelevant.
- A US arbitrator with no expertise of English legislation is, in any occasion, not the suitable tribunal for this type of declare.
The CRA and FSMA are expressions of UK public coverage.
The court docket famous the definition of public coverage in Alexander Brothers Restricted (Hong Kong SAR) v. Alstom Transport SA[2] with approval: ‘“Public coverage” as referred to in part 103(3) of the Arbitration Act means the general public coverage of England and Wales … in sustaining the truthful and orderly administration of justice’.
In respect of the CRA:
- The act is, partly, the enactment within the UK of the European Union Directive 1993/13 on unfair phrases in client contracts. It has been authoritatively established by the Court docket of Justice of the European Union that this directive represents public coverage.
- The truth that the CRA is UK (versus English) statute ‘arguably’ underlines its common significance in coverage phrases.
- The truth that the CRA obliges the court docket to think about the equity of client contract phrases even when the difficulty just isn’t raised by events to the litigation reinforces its significance as public coverage.
In respect of the FSMA:
- The act units out the Monetary Conduct Authority’s duties, which embody the development of ‘the patron safety goal’, ‘the integrity goal’ and ‘the competitors goal’, all of which have been expressly recognized by Parliament as issues of public coverage.
- Once more, the FSMA is UK statute, and thus is an expression of UK nationwide coverage.
Enforcement of the award could be opposite to public coverage.
Part 71 of the CRA obliges the court docket to think about the equity of the contract. To implement the award would ignore this obligation in mild of the next:
- Part 74 of the CRA requires that, the place a client contract has a detailed connection to the UK, client rights points underneath the scope of the statute must be handled underneath the UK statute relatively than international legislation. The contract between the events on this case had a detailed reference to the UK, however the arbitrator didn’t apply the UK statute (i.e., the FSMA).
- Part 62(4) of the CRA supplies that if a contract causes a big imbalance to the events’ rights and obligations, to the detriment of the patron, then that time period is unfair. Making use of an goal check (as required), the jurisdiction clause precipitated a big drawback to UK shoppers:
- The US federal courts and US arbitrators usually are not competent to find out or supervise disputes involved with English legislation and UK statute.
- The suitable to attraction on the premise of an error of English legislation is misplaced.
- The UK-based client could be required to retain US attorneys, which might be costly and inconvenient.
It will be inconsistent with the truthful and orderly administration of justice – in addition to basic conceptions of justice – if client protections may very well be outflanked merely by the selection of a unique system of legislation.
Imposing the award would stifle Chechetkin’s declare underneath the FSMA. That made it each opposite to the important public coverage issues underlying the FSMA and unfair underneath the CRA. The court docket additionally famous that enforcement could be opposite to the FSMA, as a result of obliging shoppers with grievances to have interaction in confidential arbitration proceedings in California would scale back the probability of offences underneath the act being investigated and prosecuted.
Takeaways
Arbitration agreements might be enticing to tech firms working globally given worldwide enforcement benefits and confidentiality, amongst different causes. However cautious thought have to be given to the related governing legislation and seat of the arbitration, significantly the place such firms enter into contracts containing arbitration clauses with shoppers in England and Wales.
We observe that the choose didn’t rule out arbitration in all instances, stating that ‘the mere truth {that a} client contract supplies for disputes to be resolved in arbitration doesn’t make it unfair’, so unfairness will rely upon every specific set of details. Nevertheless, primarily based on the current physique of English case legislation on the non enforceability of client arbitration – together with on this case – it’s turning into more and more troublesome to influence the English courts to defer to international arbitrators in relation to client claims. Due to this fact, as a rule of thumb, firms will probably be higher off not incorporating arbitration clauses into client contracts with English residents or residents.
[1] [2023] EWHC 1780 (Comm).
[2] [2020] EWHC 1584 (Comm).
[View source.] 