Stonegate Farmers Ltd v Chucks Farm Ltd [2026] EWHC 742 (Comm) (27 February 2026)

Stonegate Farmers Ltd v Chucks Farm Ltd [2026] EWHC 742 (Comm) (27 February 2026)

The arbitrator breached section 33(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding the case on the basis of an implied term that was not in play and without giving Stonegate a reasonable opportunity to address it, amounting to a serious procedural irregularity under section 68(2)(a) that caused substantial injustice. The award must be remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 742 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Stonegate Farmers Limited; Defendant/respondent: Chucks Farm Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge and Appeal / High Court Judgment on S.68 and S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 Applications
Outcome
Award 2 set aside in part and remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration under section 68(3)(a) Arbitration Act 1996.
Legal Topics
Serious Procedural Irregularity, Implied Terms, Business Efficacy, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996, Fair Hearing, Damages for Breach of Contract
Arbitration Contract Law Commercial Law Serious Procedural Irregularity Implied Terms Business Efficacy Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 +2 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stonegate Farmers Limited

Claimant/applicant

Chucks Farm Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious procedural irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding the case on an unargued implied term without giving Stonegate a reasonable opportunity to address it
  2. 2 Whether the implied term found by the arbitrator was 'in play' in the arbitration
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's finding of an implied term was obviously wrong as a matter of law (s.69)

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator breached section 33(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding the case on the basis of an implied term that was not in play and without giving Stonegate a reasonable opportunity to address it, amounting to a serious procedural irregularity under section 68(2)(a) that caused substantial injustice. The award must be remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Award 2 set aside in part and remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration under section 68(3)(a) Arbitration Act 1996.

Orders

  • Award 2 is remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration in accordance with the court's judgment.
  • Application for leave to appeal under section 69 dismissed as academic in light of the section 68 decision.