Sumner & Anor v Costa Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 4116 (Ch) (24 July 2013)

Sumner & Anor v Costa Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 4116 (Ch) (24 July 2013)

The court has jurisdiction to order cross-examination of an arbitrator in principle, but such an order is unnecessary and inappropriate in this case. The arbitration was conducted on paper by experienced surveyors, and the arbitrator has provided written reasons and a witness statement. Further oral evidence would not assist and would undermine the arbitration process deliberately chosen by the parties.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 4116 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Brenda Sumner; Claimant/applicant: Nick Makin; Defendant/respondent: Costa Limited; Defendant/respondent: P A Dickins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application in Arbitration Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Cross Examination of Arbitrator
Outcome
Application for cross-examination of the arbitrator refused
Legal Topics
Rent Review, Arbitrator's Reasoning, Cross Examination of Arbitrator, Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996, Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Property Law Rent Review Arbitrator's Reasoning Cross Examination of Arbitrator Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996

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

Parties

Brenda Sumner

Claimant/applicant

Nick Makin

Claimant/applicant

Costa Limited

Defendant/respondent

P A Dickins

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application in Arbitration Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Cross Examination of Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order cross-examination of an arbitrator regarding his reasons for an award
  2. 2 Whether cross-examination of the arbitrator is appropriate in this case
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's reasons were adequate under the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to order cross-examination of an arbitrator in principle, but such an order is unnecessary and inappropriate in this case. The arbitration was conducted on paper by experienced surveyors, and the arbitrator has provided written reasons and a witness statement. Further oral evidence would not assist and would undermine the arbitration process deliberately chosen by the parties.

Court Disposition

Application for cross-examination of the arbitrator refused

Orders

  • No order for cross-examination of the arbitrator