LIVIAN GmbH v ELEKTA LIMITED

LIVIAN GmbH v ELEKTA LIMITED

The court held that the tribunal did not overlook material evidence, and even if it had, there was no serious irregularity or substantial injustice. The tribunal’s findings were legitimate, consistent with the evidence, and in accordance with German law. The claimant failed to demonstrate that the outcome would have been significantly different had the alleged irregularity not occurred.

Parties
Claimant: LIVIAN GmbH; Defendant/respondent: ELEKTA LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE MEDIZINTECHNIK GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Challenge (commercial Court) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside or Remit Arbitral Award
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, General Duty of Tribunal Under S.33, Contractual Construction Under German Law, Remedies for Arbitral Irregularity
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 General Duty of Tribunal Under S.33 Contractual Construction Under German Law Remedies for Arbitral Irregularity

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIVIAN GmbH

Claimant

ELEKTA LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE MEDIZINTECHNIK GmbH

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Challenge (commercial Court) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside or Remit Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by allegedly overlooking material evidence
  2. 2 Whether any such irregularity caused substantial injustice to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the tribunal did not overlook material evidence, and even if it had, there was no serious irregularity or substantial injustice. The tribunal’s findings were legitimate, consistent with the evidence, and in accordance with German law. The claimant failed to demonstrate that the outcome would have been significantly different had the alleged irregularity not occurred.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The challenge under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.