Guaranteed Ashphalt (London) Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) v. Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [1998] EWHC Technology 317 (5th June, 1998)

Guaranteed Ashphalt (London) Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) v. Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [1998] EWHC Technology 317 (5th June, 1998)

The court found that none of the specific or cumulative complaints against the arbitrator amounted to misconduct or established bias or the appearance of bias. The arbitrator acted within the scope of his powers, followed the agreed procedural rules, and responded reasonably to all procedural and substantive issues raised by the parties. The application for removal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[1998] EWHC Technology 317
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Guaranteed Asphalt (London) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Related Application (removal of Arbitrator) / Judgment on Originating Motion to Remove Arbitrator for Misconduct
Outcome
Application to remove arbitrator dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator for Misconduct, Bias in Arbitration, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Security for Costs, Costs Orders in Arbitration, Authority of Administrative Receivers, Discovery and Disclosure in Arbitration
Arbitration Construction Law Insolvency Removal of Arbitrator for Misconduct Bias in Arbitration Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Security for Costs Costs Orders in Arbitration +2 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guaranteed Asphalt (London) Limited

Applicant/claimant

Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Related Application (removal of Arbitrator) / Judgment on Originating Motion to Remove Arbitrator for Misconduct

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator, Mr. Christopher Dancaster, should be removed for misconduct under section 23(1) of the Arbitration Act 1950
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator demonstrated bias or the appearance of bias against Guaranteed
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's procedural decisions amounted to misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the specific or cumulative complaints against the arbitrator amounted to misconduct or established bias or the appearance of bias. The arbitrator acted within the scope of his powers, followed the agreed procedural rules, and responded reasonably to all procedural and substantive issues raised by the parties. The application for removal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to remove arbitrator dismissed

Orders

  • Application to amend originating motion refused
  • Application to remove arbitrator for misconduct dismissed