Checkpoint Ltd. v Strathclyde Pension Fund

Checkpoint Ltd. v Strathclyde Pension Fund

The arbitrator's use of his personal experience was within the scope of knowledge expected of an expert arbitrator under the lease and did not amount to a serious irregularity. The arbitrator was evaluating evidence, not introducing new evidence or using inquisitorial powers. The failure to address the tenant's evidence on over-supply and poor demand was not a failure to deal with a critical issue but a subordinate point, and did not amount to a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice.

Parties
Appellant/tenant: Checkpoint Ltd.; Respondent/landlord: Strathclyde Pension Fund
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (arbitration) / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996, Rent Review Arbitration, Use of Arbitrator's Personal Knowledge, Procedural Fairness, Failure to Address Evidence
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Property Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 Rent Review Arbitration Use of Arbitrator's Personal Knowledge Procedural Fairness Failure to Address Evidence

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Checkpoint Ltd.

Appellant/tenant

Strathclyde Pension Fund

Respondent/landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (arbitration) / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's use of personal experience without giving parties an opportunity to comment constituted a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's failure to address the tenant's evidence on over-supply and poor demand for comparable premises was a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's use of his personal experience was within the scope of knowledge expected of an expert arbitrator under the lease and did not amount to a serious irregularity. The arbitrator was evaluating evidence, not introducing new evidence or using inquisitorial powers. The failure to address the tenant's evidence on over-supply and poor demand was not a failure to deal with a critical issue but a subordinate point, and did not amount to a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No finding of serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.