Brockton Capital Llp v Atlantic-Pacific Capital Inc [2014] EWHC 1459 (Comm) (07 May 2014)

Brockton Capital Llp v Atlantic-Pacific Capital Inc [2014] EWHC 1459 (Comm) (07 May 2014)

The tribunal breached s.33(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding that paragraph 2(g)(ii) was an unenforceable penalty without giving Brockton notice or an opportunity to address the issue, causing substantial injustice. However, the tribunal did not breach s.33 by failing to refer to specific evidence in its contractual construction analysis.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1459 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Brockton Capital LLP; Defendant/respondent: Atlantic-Pacific Capital, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 / High Court Application to Set Aside Arbitral Awards
Outcome
Partial Final Award and Final Award remitted to the existing arbitral tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996, Penalty Clauses Under New York Law, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Remission of Arbitral Awards
Arbitration Contract Law Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Penalty Clauses Under New York Law Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Remission of Arbitral Awards

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brockton Capital LLP

Claimant/applicant

Atlantic-Pacific Capital, Inc.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 / High Court Application to Set Aside Arbitral Awards

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal breached s.33 Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding an issue without giving Brockton a fair opportunity to address it
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal ignored relevant evidence in its contractual construction analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal breached s.33(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding that paragraph 2(g)(ii) was an unenforceable penalty without giving Brockton notice or an opportunity to address the issue, causing substantial injustice. However, the tribunal did not breach s.33 by failing to refer to specific evidence in its contractual construction analysis.

Court Disposition

Partial Final Award and Final Award remitted to the existing arbitral tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment.

Orders

  • Remission of both awards to the existing tribunal for reconsideration on terms to be determined after further submissions from counsel.