B v A

B v A

The material relied upon by B does not disclose a case with a realistic prospect of success for a challenge under section 67 or 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. An error in the application or interpretation of the chosen law (Spanish law) by the arbitrators does not amount to an excess of jurisdiction or serious irregularity. There was no conscious disregard of the chosen law, and the arbitrators' approach was within their powers under the Act.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: B; Defendant/claimant: A; Claimant (in Arbitration Only): X
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (commercial) / Preliminary Issue Determination on Challenge to Arbitration Award Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Challenge dismissed; preliminary issue answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
Challenge to Arbitration Award, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Serious Irregularity, Application of Foreign Law, Interpretation of Contract
Arbitration Commercial Law Challenge to Arbitration Award Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Serious Irregularity Application of Foreign Law Interpretation of Contract

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Claimant/respondent

A

Defendant/claimant

X

Claimant (in Arbitration Only)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (commercial) / Preliminary Issue Determination on Challenge to Arbitration Award Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the material relied upon by B discloses a case with a realistic prospect of success for challenging the arbitration award under section 67 and/or 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether a failure to apply the chosen law constitutes an excess of jurisdiction or serious irregularity under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The material relied upon by B does not disclose a case with a realistic prospect of success for a challenge under section 67 or 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. An error in the application or interpretation of the chosen law (Spanish law) by the arbitrators does not amount to an excess of jurisdiction or serious irregularity. There was no conscious disregard of the chosen law, and the arbitrators' approach was within their powers under the Act.

Court Disposition

Challenge dismissed; preliminary issue answered in the negative.

Orders

  • The preliminary issue is answered 'no'.