S v A & B [2016] EWHC 846 (Comm) (20 April 2016)

S v A & B [2016] EWHC 846 (Comm) (20 April 2016)

The seller's application for an extension of time under s.80(5) Arbitration Act 1996 was refused due to substantial and unjustified delay, which was attributable to the seller's own inactivity and failure to act promptly. The alleged serious irregularity under s.68 was not established, as there was no unequivocal common ground between the parties on the specification issue, and the tribunal's conduct did not meet the high threshold for court intervention. Leave to appeal under s.69 was also refused as there was no arguable error of law or point of general public importance.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 846 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: S; Defendant: A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Arbitration Challenge and Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time, S.68 Challenge, and S.69 Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69, Extension of Time Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.80(5), Implied Terms Under Sale of Goods Act 1979 Ss.13 and 14, Interpretation of Contractual Specifications, Finality and Speed in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Sale of Goods Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69 Extension of Time Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.80(5) Implied Terms Under Sale of Goods Act 1979 Ss.13 and 14 Interpretation of Contractual Specifications +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Claimant

A

Defendant

B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Arbitration Challenge and Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time, S.68 Challenge, and S.69 Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seller's application to challenge the arbitration award was in time or merited an extension under s.80(5) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) and/or (c) of the Arbitration Act 1996 justifying court intervention
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's findings on specification and breach were contrary to common ground between the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The seller's application for an extension of time under s.80(5) Arbitration Act 1996 was refused due to substantial and unjustified delay, which was attributable to the seller's own inactivity and failure to act promptly. The alleged serious irregularity under s.68 was not established, as there was no unequivocal common ground between the parties on the specification issue, and the tribunal's conduct did not meet the high threshold for court intervention. Leave to appeal under s.69 was also refused as there was no arguable error of law or point of general public importance.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time under s.80(5) Arbitration Act 1996 refused
  • Application to challenge award under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 refused