Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Tank & Anor

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Tank & Anor

The arbitrator's direct, undisclosed contact with potential witnesses, without making a record or disclosing the content to the parties, constituted a failure to conduct proceedings fairly and properly, giving rise to a real possibility of bias in the eyes of a fair-minded and informed observer. This amounted to a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, causing substantial injustice, and justified removal of the arbitrator under section 24. The Second Decision (costs award) was set aside on this basis.

Parties
Claimant: Norbrook Laboratories Ltd; First Defendant: A Tank; Second Defendant: Moulson Chemplant Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Applications for Removal of Arbitrator and to Set Aside Arbitral Decisions
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator, Serious Irregularity, Impartiality, Procedural Fairness, Costs in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Removal of Arbitrator Serious Irregularity Impartiality Procedural Fairness 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd

Claimant

A Tank

First Defendant

Moulson Chemplant Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Applications for Removal of Arbitrator and to Set Aside Arbitral Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator should be removed under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for justifiable doubts as to impartiality and failure to properly conduct proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral decisions (First and Second Decisions) should be set aside under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for serious irregularity causing substantial injustice
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's direct contact with witnesses and parties constituted procedural unfairness or apparent bias

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's direct, undisclosed contact with potential witnesses, without making a record or disclosing the content to the parties, constituted a failure to conduct proceedings fairly and properly, giving rise to a real possibility of bias in the eyes of a fair-minded and informed observer. This amounted to a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, causing substantial injustice, and justified removal of the arbitrator under section 24. The Second Decision (costs award) was set aside on this basis.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • The arbitrator is removed under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • The Second Decision (costs award) is set aside under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.