London Underground Ltd v Citylink Telecommunications Ltd Rev 1 [2007] EWHC 1749 (TCC) (20 July 2007)

London Underground Ltd v Citylink Telecommunications Ltd Rev 1 [2007] EWHC 1749 (TCC) (20 July 2007)

No serious irregularity under s.68 was established as the arbitrator did not decide the case on a basis outside the pleaded cases or evidence, nor was there a failure to deal with essential issues. The arbitrator's approach to the global claim and extension of time was within his powers and did not deprive either party of a fair opportunity to address the case. Leave to appeal under s.69 was refused as no question of law arose that was obviously wrong on the facts found.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1749 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/defendant: London Underground Limited; Defendant/claimant: Citylink Telecommunications Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996, Ss. 68 and 69 / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside/remit Award for Serious Irregularity and for Leave to Appeal on Point of Law
Outcome
Applications under s.68 by both parties dismissed; application for leave to appeal under s.69 refused.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Leave to Appeal on Point of Law Under S.69, Global Claims in Construction Arbitration, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Extension of Time Claims
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Leave to Appeal on Point of Law Under S.69 Global Claims in Construction Arbitration Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Extension of Time 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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Underground Limited

Claimant/defendant

Citylink Telecommunications Limited

Defendant/claimant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996, Ss. 68 and 69 / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside/remit Award for Serious Irregularity and for Leave to Appeal on Point of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to act fairly or follow agreed procedure
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to deal with all essential issues under s.68(2)(d)
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal on a point of law should be granted under s.69

Ratio Decidendi

No serious irregularity under s.68 was established as the arbitrator did not decide the case on a basis outside the pleaded cases or evidence, nor was there a failure to deal with essential issues. The arbitrator's approach to the global claim and extension of time was within his powers and did not deprive either party of a fair opportunity to address the case. Leave to appeal under s.69 was refused as no question of law arose that was obviously wrong on the facts found.

Court Disposition

Applications under s.68 by both parties dismissed; application for leave to appeal under s.69 refused.

Orders

  • CTL's application for leave to appeal under s.69 refused.
  • LUL's application under s.68 dismissed.