Benaim (UK) Ltd. v Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd [2005] EWHC 1370 (TCC) (15 June 2005)

Benaim (UK) Ltd. v Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd [2005] EWHC 1370 (TCC) (15 June 2005)

The arbitrator was entitled to make findings on delay and related issues within the scope of the liability hearing, as both parties addressed these matters in pleadings, submissions, and evidence. No procedural irregularity or substantial injustice occurred. The complaints did not justify removal of the arbitrator under s.24, nor setting aside the award under s.68. The applications for permission to appeal under s.69 failed as the issues raised were not suitable for appeal and amounted largely to attempts to reargue factual matters.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1370 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Benaim (UK) Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Post Award Challenge (applications Under Ss.24, 68, 69 Arbitration Act 1996)
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator, Serious Irregularity, Appeal on Point of Law, Negligence in Design, Split Hearings (liability/quantum)
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Removal of Arbitrator Serious Irregularity Appeal on Point of Law Negligence in Design Split Hearings (liability/quantum)

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

Parties

Benaim (UK) Ltd.

Claimant/applicant

Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Post Award Challenge (applications Under Ss.24, 68, 69 Arbitration Act 1996)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator should be removed under s.24 Arbitration Act 1996 for failure to conduct proceedings properly
  2. 2 Whether the award should be set aside under s.68 for serious irregularity
  3. 3 Whether permission to appeal under s.69 should be granted on questions of law arising from the award

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator was entitled to make findings on delay and related issues within the scope of the liability hearing, as both parties addressed these matters in pleadings, submissions, and evidence. No procedural irregularity or substantial injustice occurred. The complaints did not justify removal of the arbitrator under s.24, nor setting aside the award under s.68. The applications for permission to appeal under s.69 failed as the issues raised were not suitable for appeal and amounted largely to attempts to reargue factual matters.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application to remove arbitrator under s.24 dismissed
  • Application to set aside award under s.68 dismissed