PBO v DONPRO [2021] EWHC 1951 (Comm) (16 June 2021)

PBO v DONPRO [2021] EWHC 1951 (Comm) (16 June 2021)

The Board of Appeal committed a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding the counterclaim on the basis of Rule 19.5 and associated findings that were not argued or in play, and without giving PBO a fair opportunity to address those points. This deprived PBO of a fair hearing and caused substantial injustice. The challenge under section 68 succeeded.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1951 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PBO; First Respondent: DONPRO; Second Respondent: 2DON; Third Respondent: CODON
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (challenge to Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Section 68 challenge succeeded; Appeal Award set aside and remitted to Board of Appeal for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Challenge to Arbitral Award, Serious Irregularity, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Fair Hearing, Procedural Fairness, Interpretation of Arbitration Rules
Arbitration Commercial Law Challenge to Arbitral Award Serious Irregularity Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Fair Hearing Procedural Fairness Interpretation of Arbitration Rules

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PBO

Claimant

DONPRO

First Respondent

2DON

Second Respondent

CODON

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (challenge to Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board of Appeal committed a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding on grounds not argued by the parties and without giving PBO an opportunity to address them
  2. 2 Whether the Board of Appeal erred in refusing to allow PBO to amend its statement of case on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Board of Appeal had jurisdiction to determine the Jute Bag Losses claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Board of Appeal committed a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding the counterclaim on the basis of Rule 19.5 and associated findings that were not argued or in play, and without giving PBO a fair opportunity to address those points. This deprived PBO of a fair hearing and caused substantial injustice. The challenge under section 68 succeeded.

Court Disposition

Section 68 challenge succeeded; Appeal Award set aside and remitted to Board of Appeal for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Appeal Award set aside in relation to the counterclaim and remitted to the Board of Appeal for reconsideration.
  • No order on section 67 and 69 applications as relief granted under section 68.