Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1631 (QB) (14 July 2005)

Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1631 (QB) (14 July 2005)

The claimants' application under section 68 was out of time and, in any event, barred by their failure to object forthwith and to exhaust arbitral remedies. The criticisms of the arbitrator's conduct and award were unfounded, and no serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established. The application for removal of the arbitrator under section 24 also failed, as the arbitrator's conduct did not amount to a failure properly to conduct the proceedings.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1631
Parties
Claimant: Sinclair; First Defendant: Woods of Winchester Ltd.; Second Defendant (arbitrator): Harrison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (application to Remove Arbitrator And/or Set Aside Award) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 24 and 68 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator, Serious Irregularity in Arbitration, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Section 24 Arbitration Act 1996, Time Limits for Arbitration Challenges, Loss of Right to Object, Exhaustion of Arbitral Remedies, Substantial Injustice, Definition of Issues in Arbitration, Duty to Provide Reasons
Arbitration Construction Law Civil Procedure Removal of Arbitrator Serious Irregularity in Arbitration Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Section 24 Arbitration Act 1996 Time Limits for Arbitration Challenges +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinclair

Claimant

Woods of Winchester Ltd.

First Defendant

Harrison

Second Defendant (arbitrator)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (application to Remove Arbitrator And/or Set Aside Award) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 24 and 68 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator should be removed under section 24(1)(d)(i) of the Arbitration Act 1996 for failure properly to conduct the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the award should be set aside under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for serious irregularity causing substantial injustice
  3. 3 Whether the claimants lost their right to object by failing to raise objections forthwith or to exhaust arbitral remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' application under section 68 was out of time and, in any event, barred by their failure to object forthwith and to exhaust arbitral remedies. The criticisms of the arbitrator's conduct and award were unfounded, and no serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established. The application for removal of the arbitrator under section 24 also failed, as the arbitrator's conduct did not amount to a failure properly to conduct the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed as out of time and for failure to exhaust remedies.
  • Application under section 24 Arbitration Act 1996 for removal of arbitrator dismissed.