Halcrow Group Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 3596 (TCC) (01 November 2016)

Halcrow Group Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 3596 (TCC) (01 November 2016)

The court held that no serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 was established. The arbitrator acted within his powers, gave parties opportunity to address issues, and any exclusion of evidence or reliance on expertise was either proper or waived by Halcrow's failure to object. The arbitrator's evaluation of causation and findings were not open to review under s.68. No substantial injustice was shown. The application to set aside or remit the award was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3596 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Halcrow Group Limited; First Defendant: Blackpool Borough Council; Second Defendant (arbitrator): Gordon Bathgate
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal and Challenge / Judgment on Applications Under S.68 and S.69 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Applications under s.68 and s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996, Appeal on Point of Law Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Use of Tribunal's Own Expertise, Burden of Proof in Arbitration, Procedural Fairness
Arbitration Construction Law Civil Procedure Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Appeal on Point of Law Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 Admissibility of Expert Evidence Use of Tribunal's Own Expertise Burden of Proof in Arbitration +1 more

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

Parties

Halcrow Group Limited

Claimant

Blackpool Borough Council

First Defendant

Gordon Bathgate

Second Defendant (arbitrator)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal and Challenge / Judgment on Applications Under S.68 and S.69 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 affecting the award
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to act fairly or to deal with all issues
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator improperly excluded expert opinion evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that no serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 was established. The arbitrator acted within his powers, gave parties opportunity to address issues, and any exclusion of evidence or reliance on expertise was either proper or waived by Halcrow's failure to object. The arbitrator's evaluation of causation and findings were not open to review under s.68. No substantial injustice was shown. The application to set aside or remit the award was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications under s.68 and s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to set aside or remit the award refused.
  • No order for additional reasons or awards from the arbitrator.