C Ltd v D & X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm) (21 May 2020)

C Ltd v D & X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm) (21 May 2020)

The claimant is not to be regarded as the successful party for costs purposes because the arbitrator's resignation was prompted by the SRA referral, not by the merits of the section 24 application. There is no clear basis for awarding costs against either the arbitrator or the respondent. The case falls within the category where the default is no order for costs, as it is not tolerably clear who would have won had the matter proceeded to trial.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: C Limited; First Defendant: D; Second Defendant / Arbitrator: X
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Post Hearing Judgment on Costs Following Arbitrator's Resignation
Outcome
No order as to costs; claimant's application for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator, Costs Orders, Impartiality, Arbitrator Conduct
Arbitration Civil Procedure Removal of Arbitrator Costs Orders Impartiality Arbitrator Conduct

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C Limited

Claimant

D

First Defendant

X

Second Defendant / Arbitrator

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Post Hearing Judgment on Costs Following Arbitrator's Resignation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is the successful party for costs purposes after arbitrator's resignation
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against arbitrator and/or respondent
  3. 3 Merits of section 24 application for removal of arbitrator

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is not to be regarded as the successful party for costs purposes because the arbitrator's resignation was prompted by the SRA referral, not by the merits of the section 24 application. There is no clear basis for awarding costs against either the arbitrator or the respondent. The case falls within the category where the default is no order for costs, as it is not tolerably clear who would have won had the matter proceeded to trial.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; claimant's application for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs.