T v V & Ors [2017] EWHC 565 (Comm) (07 February 2017)

T v V & Ors [2017] EWHC 565 (Comm) (07 February 2017)

The arbitrator acted within her discretion, granted multiple extensions based on medical evidence, and properly balanced the interests of all parties. No circumstances existed giving rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality, nor did the arbitrator fail to conduct proceedings properly so as to cause substantial injustice. The application for removal did not meet the statutory threshold under s.24 Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 565 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: T; First Defendant: V; Second Defendant: W; Third Defendant / Arbitrator: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Application to Remove Arbitrator Under S.24 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator, Impartiality, Proper Conduct of Proceedings, Substantial Injustice, Restrictive Covenants, Equality Act Adjustments, Repudiatory Breach, Disclosure Obligations
Arbitration Commercial Law Partnership Law Removal of Arbitrator Impartiality Proper Conduct of Proceedings Substantial Injustice Restrictive Covenants +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T

Claimant

V

First Defendant

W

Second Defendant

A

Third Defendant / Arbitrator

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Application to Remove Arbitrator Under S.24 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether circumstances exist giving rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator refused or failed properly to conduct proceedings causing substantial injustice under s.24(1)(d) Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator acted within her discretion, granted multiple extensions based on medical evidence, and properly balanced the interests of all parties. No circumstances existed giving rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality, nor did the arbitrator fail to conduct proceedings properly so as to cause substantial injustice. The application for removal did not meet the statutory threshold under s.24 Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Arbitrator A remains appointed
  • Proceedings to continue under existing orders