A1 & Ors v P

Facts

P provides intelligence gathering services and analysis in support of legal proceedings. A US law firm, C, engaged P in connection with a dispute involving the Claimants — A1 and A2, companies incorporated in Country 1, and A3, a Country 2 special purpose vehicle incorporated for a container port project and managed by A2. Whether C contracted as principal or as agent for one or more of the Claimants was contested throughout. P brought an LCIA arbitration for its fee, and in an award dated 10 April 2024 a three-member tribunal held A1, A2 and A3 jointly and severally liable for the fee, interest and costs. The Claimants challenged jurisdiction under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, contending that C lacked authority to bind them and, as a prominent new feature of the court proceedings, that neither A1 nor A2 had authorised C to enter an arbitration agreement as required by an article of the Civil Code of Country 1 (the Authorisation Article). P's application for summary determination was refused by Butcher J and its security for costs application was not pursued after A1 gave an undertaking. In his substantive judgment of 19 December 2025, Henshaw J set the Award aside against A1 and A3 but upheld it against A2, whose Authorisation Article objection was barred by section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996. This judgment resolves costs.