Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Tank & Anor [2006] EWHC 1055 (Comm) (12 May 2006)

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Tank & Anor [2006] EWHC 1055 (Comm) (12 May 2006)

The court held that while the arbitrator's conduct in making direct contact with parties and witnesses without full disclosure was inappropriate and could give rise to concern, it did not reach the threshold of justifiable doubts as to impartiality or amount to a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice. The arbitrator's management of the proceedings, including the costs decision, was within his procedural discretion under the arbitration rules. The applications for removal of the arbitrator and to set aside or declare ineffective his decisions were therefore refused.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1055 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Norbrook Laboratories Ltd; 1st Defendant (arbitrator): A Tank; 2nd Defendant: Moulson Chemplant Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Applications for Removal of Arbitrator and to Set Aside/interfere With Arbitral Decisions
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator, Serious Irregularity, Impartiality of Arbitrator, Natural Justice, Arbitration Procedure, Costs in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Removal of Arbitrator Serious Irregularity Impartiality of Arbitrator Natural Justice Arbitration Procedure Costs in Arbitration

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd

Claimant

A Tank

1st Defendant (arbitrator)

Moulson Chemplant Ltd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Applications for Removal of Arbitrator and to Set Aside/interfere With Arbitral Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether circumstances exist giving rise to justifiable doubts as to the impartiality of the arbitrator under section 24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed properly to conduct the proceedings causing substantial injustice under section 24(1)(d) and/or section 68 Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's conduct amounted to a serious irregularity justifying setting aside or declaring ineffective his decisions on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the arbitrator's conduct in making direct contact with parties and witnesses without full disclosure was inappropriate and could give rise to concern, it did not reach the threshold of justifiable doubts as to impartiality or amount to a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice. The arbitrator's management of the proceedings, including the costs decision, was within his procedural discretion under the arbitration rules. The applications for removal of the arbitrator and to set aside or declare ineffective his decisions were therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application for removal of arbitrator refused
  • Application to set aside or declare ineffective the arbitrator's decisions refused