Knowles Ltd v Celtic Bioenergy Ltd [2021] EWHC 1829 (TCC) (15 March 2021)

Knowles Ltd v Celtic Bioenergy Ltd [2021] EWHC 1829 (TCC) (15 March 2021)

There was no serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) or (b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 because the arbitrator dealt with all points put to him, was entitled to find Knowles the overall winner based on the net result, and there was no inconsistency or unfairness in his approach to costs. Even if there had been an irregularity, no substantial injustice was shown, as remission would not have led to a different outcome.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1829 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Knowles Limited; Defendant/applicant: Celtic BioEnergy Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68(2) / High Court Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Costs in Arbitration, General Duty of Arbitral Tribunal (s.33), Issue Estoppel, Interpretation of 'winner' in Arbitration Costs, Remission of Award
Arbitration Civil Procedure Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Costs in Arbitration General Duty of Arbitral Tribunal (s.33) Issue Estoppel Interpretation of 'winner' in Arbitration Costs Remission of Award

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Knowles Limited

Claimant/respondent

Celtic BioEnergy Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68(2) / High Court Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to comply with the general duty under s.33
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's decision on costs and identification of the 'winner' was contrary to prior awards or inconsistent with agreed procedure
  3. 3 Whether there was substantial injustice caused by any alleged irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

There was no serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) or (b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 because the arbitrator dealt with all points put to him, was entitled to find Knowles the overall winner based on the net result, and there was no inconsistency or unfairness in his approach to costs. Even if there had been an irregularity, no substantial injustice was shown, as remission would not have led to a different outcome.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claim under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed
  • No order for remission of the award