B v A (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1626 (Comm) (01 July 2010)

B v A (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1626 (Comm) (01 July 2010)

A challenge to an arbitration award on the basis that the tribunal erred in the application or interpretation of the chosen law does not disclose a realistic prospect of success under sections 67 or 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, unless there is a conscious disregard of the chosen law, which was not alleged or established in this case. The arbitrators' approach, even if erroneous, does not amount to excess of jurisdiction or serious irregularity.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1626 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: B; Defendant: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Preliminary Issue Determination in High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Application dismissed; preliminary issue answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
Challenge to Arbitration Award, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Serious Irregularity, Application of Chosen Law, Interpretation of Contract
Arbitration Commercial Law Challenge to Arbitration Award Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Serious Irregularity Application of Chosen Law Interpretation of Contract

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Claimant

A

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Preliminary Issue Determination in High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a challenge to an arbitration award under sections 67 and/or 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is maintainable where it is alleged that the tribunal failed to apply the law chosen by the parties
  2. 2 Whether an error in the application or interpretation of the chosen law constitutes an excess of jurisdiction or serious irregularity under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

A challenge to an arbitration award on the basis that the tribunal erred in the application or interpretation of the chosen law does not disclose a realistic prospect of success under sections 67 or 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, unless there is a conscious disregard of the chosen law, which was not alleged or established in this case. The arbitrators' approach, even if erroneous, does not amount to excess of jurisdiction or serious irregularity.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; preliminary issue answered in the negative.

Orders

  • No realistic prospect of success for challenge under sections 67 or 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • No further orders made.