← All Authorities
United States Leading Case arbitration agreements

Stolt-Nielsen SA v AnimalFeeds International Corp

559 U.S. 662 (2010)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2010
StatusBinding authority

Summary

An arbitration panel may not impose class arbitration where the agreement is silent on its availability; silence cannot be construed as consent to class proceedings.

Key Principle

An arbitration panel may not impose class arbitration on parties whose arbitration agreement is silent on the availability of class arbitration.

Area of Law

arbitration

Related Cases

Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 514

A dispute must be referred to arbitration if it falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement, applying a generous interpretation in favour of arbitrability.

TCL Air Conditioner v Judges of the Federal Court (Arbitral Awards) [2013] HCA 5

Enforcement of international commercial arbitral awards does not involve arbitrators exercising judicial power; enforcement itself is a judicial function constitutionally vested in Chapter III courts.

Re Shift Energy Asia Limited [2025] HKCFI 6415

Court considered how the Guy Lam discretion operates where the existence of an arbitration agreement is itself in dispute.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Stolt-Nielsen SA v AnimalFeeds International Corp and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Stolt-Nielsen SA v AnimalFeeds...