Livian GmbH v Elekta Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 757 (Comm) (11 April 2022)

Livian GmbH v Elekta Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 757 (Comm) (11 April 2022)

The tribunal did not breach its duty under section 33 by failing to refer to Mr Prosser's oral evidence, as the evidence was not material to the contractual construction under German law and was consistent with the tribunal's conclusions. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was demonstrated; the challenge fails.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 757 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: LIVIAN GmbH; Defendant/respondent: ELEKTA LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE MEDIZINTECHNIK GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68(2)(a) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Section 33 Duty, Contractual Interpretation, Bundling Obligation, Substantial Injustice
Arbitration Contract Serious Irregularity Section 33 Duty Contractual Interpretation Bundling Obligation Substantial Injustice

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIVIAN GmbH

Claimant

ELEKTA LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE MEDIZINTECHNIK GmbH

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68(2)(a) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to comply with section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by allegedly overlooking evidence
  2. 2 Whether such failure constituted a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice under section 68(2)(a)
  3. 3 Proper construction of the PLDA under German law regarding bundling obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not breach its duty under section 33 by failing to refer to Mr Prosser's oral evidence, as the evidence was not material to the contractual construction under German law and was consistent with the tribunal's conclusions. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was demonstrated; the challenge fails.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Challenge under section 68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed
  • No order setting aside or remitting the arbitral award