London Underground Ltd v Citylink Telecommunications Ltd Rev 1

London Underground Ltd v Citylink Telecommunications Ltd Rev 1

The arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68; his findings on the 48-week extension of time and causation were within the pleaded and argued case, and no unfairness or substantial injustice occurred. CTL's applications for leave to appeal under s.69 failed as the questions raised were not proper questions of law, were not obviously wrong, or would not substantially affect the parties' rights. The applications under both s.68 and s.69 were dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/defendant: London Underground Limited; Defendant/claimant: Citylink Telecommunications Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996), Leave to Appeal on Point of Law (s.69 Arbitration Act 1996), Global Claims in Construction, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Causation and Delay Analysis
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Serious Irregularity (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996) Leave to Appeal on Point of Law (s.69 Arbitration Act 1996) Global Claims in Construction Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Causation and Delay Analysis

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Underground Limited

Claimant/defendant

Citylink Telecommunications Limited

Defendant/claimant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator decided issues outside the pleaded and argued case

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68; his findings on the 48-week extension of time and causation were within the pleaded and argued case, and no unfairness or substantial injustice occurred. CTL's applications for leave to appeal under s.69 failed as the questions raised were not proper questions of law, were not obviously wrong, or would not substantially affect the parties' rights. The applications under both s.68 and s.69 were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • LUL’s application under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • CTL’s application under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.