K & Ors v P & Ors

K & Ors v P & Ors

The tribunal committed serious irregularity by failing to deal with the issue of whether payment of the MSPA price satisfied the 'payment out' requirement for losses, by deciding the Silo and Net Debt issues on bases not argued or without giving the Buyers an opportunity to respond, causing substantial injustice. However, the tribunal did not err in its approach to the Qualifying Land Leases issue, as the Buyers had opportunity to address the arguments and no procedural unfairness occurred.

Parties
Claimants: K and others; Defendants: P and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under S 68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application allowed in part; award remitted to tribunal for reconsideration of specified issues
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Procedural Fairness, Remission of Arbitral Award, Breach of Warranty, Indemnity Claims
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Procedural Fairness Remission of Arbitral Award Breach of Warranty Indemnity Claims

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K and others

Claimants

P and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under S 68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed serious irregularity under s 68 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to deal with issues put to it
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal acted unfairly by allowing unpleaded claims or arguments

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal committed serious irregularity by failing to deal with the issue of whether payment of the MSPA price satisfied the 'payment out' requirement for losses, by deciding the Silo and Net Debt issues on bases not argued or without giving the Buyers an opportunity to respond, causing substantial injustice. However, the tribunal did not err in its approach to the Qualifying Land Leases issue, as the Buyers had opportunity to address the arguments and no procedural unfairness occurred.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; award remitted to tribunal for reconsideration of specified issues

Orders

  • Award remitted to the arbitral tribunal for determination of (i) whether payment of the MSPA price satisfies 'payment out' for losses, (ii) the Silo issue, and (iii) the Net Debt issue.
  • If parties cannot agree on costs, Sellers to pay 60% of Buyers' costs of the application, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.