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 arbitrator's conduct did not amount to serious irregularity or justify removal under section 24; the criticisms were either factually unfounded or resulted from the claimants' own errors. No substantial injustice was demonstrated.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1631 (QB)
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 (removal of Arbitrator and Challenge to Award) / High Court Judgment on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 24 and 68
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator, Serious Irregularity, Challenge to Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Jurisdictional Objections, Time Limits for Applications
Arbitration Construction Law Civil Procedure Removal of Arbitrator Serious Irregularity Challenge to Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Jurisdictional Objections +1 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 17 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 (removal of Arbitrator and Challenge to Award) / High Court Judgment on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 24 and 68

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator should be removed under section 24(1)(d)(i) of the Arbitration Act 1996 for failure to properly conduct proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award should be set aside for serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  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 arbitrator's conduct did not amount to serious irregularity or justify removal under section 24; the criticisms were either factually unfounded or resulted from the claimants' own errors. No substantial injustice was demonstrated.

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