In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Alrubie v Chelsea Football Club and another [2025] EWHC 541 (Comm)</span>, the English Commercial Court granted a stay of proceedings under Section 9 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Arbitration Act 1996</span>, ruling that the parties were bound by an arbitration agreement set out in the Football Association Ltd's Rules of Association (“<span class="news-text_medium">FA Rules</span>”). The case arose from a dispute involving a football agent who had facilitated a player transfer and claimed unpaid fees from Chelsea Football Club. The claimant sought damages, while the defendant, Chelsea Football Club, requested a stay on the grounds that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration under the FA Rules.
The court found that both parties were “participants” under the FA Rules, which required arbitration for any dispute between them. Both the claimant and defendant had agreed to be bound by these rules, including Rule K, which mandates arbitration for participant disputes. The key issue before the court was whether the FA Rules had a “horizontal” contractual effect between the parties, in addition to their “vertical” effect with the FA.
Sitting as deputy High Court judge, David Quest KC explained that the existence of a horizontal contract between the parties depended on the facts and circumstances, including their express agreement to be bound by the FA Rules. Since both parties had entered into an agreement with the FA to comply with its rules, including Rule K, they had assumed contractual obligations to one another, making arbitration the appropriate forum for the dispute.
The judge determined that Rule K applied to the dispute, granting the stay and dismissing other arguments put forward by the defendant. It was unnecessary to address the case management reasons for the stay.
