Halcrow Group Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council & Anor

Halcrow Group Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council & Anor

The court held that Halcrow failed to establish any serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, as the arbitrator acted within his powers, dealt with all essential issues, and any exclusion of evidence was not objected to at the hearing and thus waived. The arbitrator's findings on causation and burden of proof were not obviously wrong or contrary to law, and the application for permission to appeal under s.69 was refused as no error of law was established.

Parties
Claimant: Halcrow Group Limited; First Defendant: Blackpool Borough Council; Second Defendant (arbitrator): Gordon Bathgate
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge / Appeal / 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), Appeal on Point of Law (s.69 Arbitration Act 1996), Burden of Proof, Causation, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Procedural Fairness
Arbitration Construction Law Civil Procedure Serious Irregularity (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996) Appeal on Point of Law (s.69 Arbitration Act 1996) Burden of Proof Causation Admissibility of Expert Evidence +1 more

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halcrow Group Limited

Claimant

Blackpool Borough Council

First Defendant

Gordon Bathgate

Second Defendant (arbitrator)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge / Appeal / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 affecting the arbitral award
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal on a point of law under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator failed to act fairly or to deal with all issues put to him

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Halcrow failed to establish any serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, as the arbitrator acted within his powers, dealt with all essential issues, and any exclusion of evidence was not objected to at the hearing and thus waived. The arbitrator's findings on causation and burden of proof were not obviously wrong or contrary to law, and the application for permission to appeal under s.69 was refused as no error of law was established.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • Application under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.