P v Q & Ors [2017] EWHC 194 (Comm) (09 February 2017)

P v Q & Ors [2017] EWHC 194 (Comm) (09 February 2017)

There was no improper delegation of adjudicative functions by the Co-Arbitrators to the tribunal secretary. The Co-Arbitrators appropriately reviewed and approved draft decisions, fulfilling their responsibilities. The use of the secretary was within accepted practice and did not amount to misconduct or failure to properly conduct proceedings. No substantial injustice was caused. The application for removal was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 194 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: P; First Defendant: Q; Second Defendant: R; Third Defendant: S; Fourth Defendant: U
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24(1)(d)(i) / Judgment on Application to Remove Arbitrators
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrators, Delegation of Arbitral Functions, Arbitral Secretaries, Procedural Fairness, LCIA Rules
Arbitration Commercial Law Removal of Arbitrators Delegation of Arbitral Functions Arbitral Secretaries Procedural Fairness LCIA Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P

Claimant

Q

First Defendant

R

Second Defendant

S

Third Defendant

U

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24(1)(d)(i) / Judgment on Application to Remove Arbitrators

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Co-Arbitrators improperly delegated adjudicative functions to the tribunal secretary
  2. 2 Whether the Co-Arbitrators failed to properly conduct proceedings under s.24(1)(d)(i) Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether alleged misrepresentations by Co-Arbitrators justify removal

Ratio Decidendi

There was no improper delegation of adjudicative functions by the Co-Arbitrators to the tribunal secretary. The Co-Arbitrators appropriately reviewed and approved draft decisions, fulfilling their responsibilities. The use of the secretary was within accepted practice and did not amount to misconduct or failure to properly conduct proceedings. No substantial injustice was caused. The application for removal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to remove the Second and Third Defendants as arbitrators is dismissed.