Maass v Musion Events Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 1346 (Comm) (18 May 2015)

Maass v Musion Events Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 1346 (Comm) (18 May 2015)

The September award was affected by a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 because the arbitrator determined his own jurisdiction and made costs orders without giving Mr Maass a proper opportunity to present submissions and evidence on the jurisdictional challenge, thereby breaching the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1346 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Alfred Uwe Maass; First Defendant: Musion Events Limited; Second Defendant: Ian Christopher O'Connell; Third Defendant: William James Rock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Challenge to Arbitral Award / Judgment on Application Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 succeeds; September award found to be affected by serious irregularity; relief to be determined after further submissions.
Legal Topics
Arbitral Jurisdiction, Serious Irregularity, Costs in Arbitration, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements, Status of Parties to Arbitration, Correction of Arbitral Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Intellectual Property Arbitral Jurisdiction Serious Irregularity Costs in Arbitration Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements Status of Parties to Arbitration +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Uwe Maass

Claimant

Musion Events Limited

First Defendant

Ian Christopher O'Connell

Second Defendant

William James Rock

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Challenge to Arbitral Award / Judgment on Application Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the dispute and make costs orders where the status of a party (MEL) as a party to the arbitration agreement was unresolved
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's September award was affected by serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 due to failure to allow submissions on jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the costs orders in the September award were valid

Ratio Decidendi

The September award was affected by a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 because the arbitrator determined his own jurisdiction and made costs orders without giving Mr Maass a proper opportunity to present submissions and evidence on the jurisdictional challenge, thereby breaching the general duty of fairness under section 33.

Court Disposition

Application under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 succeeds; September award found to be affected by serious irregularity; relief to be determined after further submissions.