Benaim (UK) Ltd. v Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd

Benaim (UK) Ltd. v Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd

The arbitrator did not fail to conduct proceedings properly, did not exceed the scope of the liability hearing, provided sufficient reasons, and made findings based on evidence and submissions. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was demonstrated under s.68. No point of law was shown on which the arbitrator was obviously wrong. The applications for removal, to set aside the award, and for permission to appeal were all dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Benaim (UK) Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (high Court, Technology & Construction Court) / Judgment on Applications to Remove Arbitrator, Set Aside Award for Serious Irregularity, and Appeal on Points of Law
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator, Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69, Duties of Design Professionals, Interpretation of Design and Build Contracts
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Professional Negligence Removal of Arbitrator Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69 Duties of Design Professionals +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benaim (UK) Ltd.

Claimant/applicant

Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (high Court, Technology & Construction Court) / Judgment on Applications to Remove Arbitrator, Set Aside Award for Serious Irregularity, and Appeal on Points of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator should be removed under s.24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for failure to conduct proceedings properly
  2. 2 Whether the award should be set aside for serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether permission to appeal on points of law under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator did not fail to conduct proceedings properly, did not exceed the scope of the liability hearing, provided sufficient reasons, and made findings based on evidence and submissions. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was demonstrated under s.68. No point of law was shown on which the arbitrator was obviously wrong. The applications for removal, to set aside the award, and for permission to appeal were all dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application to remove arbitrator under s.24 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed
  • Application to set aside award for serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed