Omnibridge Consulting Ltd v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd [2004] EWHC 2276 (Comm) (12 October 2004)

Omnibridge Consulting Ltd v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd [2004] EWHC 2276 (Comm) (12 October 2004)

The arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under s.68 by deciding the bonus period contrary to the parties' common ground and without giving notice or opportunity to address the issue, causing substantial injustice to OCL. The appropriate remedy is to remit the relevant parts of the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration. Section 69 relief is not appropriate where remission under s.68 is available.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2276 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant (in First Arbitration Application), Defendant (in Second Arbitration Application): Omnibridge Consulting Limited; Defendant (in First Arbitration Application), Claimant (in Second Arbitration Application): Clearsprings (Management) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (commercial Court) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Award remitted to arbitrator for reconsideration of bonus period; no leave to appeal granted under s.69; extension of time granted for CML's application as necessary.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Leave to Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69, Interpretation of Consultancy and Bonus Clauses, Remission of Arbitral Award, General Duty of Arbitral Tribunal (s.33)
Arbitration Contract Law Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Leave to Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69 Interpretation of Consultancy and Bonus Clauses Remission of Arbitral Award General Duty of Arbitral Tribunal (s.33)

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omnibridge Consulting Limited

Claimant (in First Arbitration Application), Defendant (in Second Arbitration Application)

Clearsprings (Management) Limited

Defendant (in First Arbitration Application), Claimant (in Second Arbitration Application)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (commercial Court) / 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 by deciding the bonus period contrary to the parties' common position and without notice
  2. 2 Whether substantial injustice resulted from the arbitrator's approach to the bonus period
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s.69 on the construction of the bonus clause

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under s.68 by deciding the bonus period contrary to the parties' common ground and without giving notice or opportunity to address the issue, causing substantial injustice to OCL. The appropriate remedy is to remit the relevant parts of the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration. Section 69 relief is not appropriate where remission under s.68 is available.

Court Disposition

Award remitted to arbitrator for reconsideration of bonus period; no leave to appeal granted under s.69; extension of time granted for CML's application as necessary.

Orders

  • Relevant parts of the arbitral award concerning the bonus period are remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration in light of the parties' common ground.
  • No order granting leave to appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.