S v A & B

S v A & B

The seller failed to demonstrate any serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) or (c) Arbitration Act 1996, as there was no clear common ground abandoned by the buyers and the tribunal's findings were within the scope of the parties' pleaded cases and submissions. The delay in making the applications was substantial and attributable to the seller's inactivity, and the strength of the challenge was insufficient to justify an extension of time. Leave to appeal under s.69 was refused as the questions posed were not ones the tribunal was asked to determine, involved mixed law and fact, and the tribunal's decision was not obviously wrong.

Parties
Claimant: S; Defendant: A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time, Challenge Under S.68, and Leave to Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Applications for extension of time, challenge under s.68, and leave to appeal under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 refused.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996, Leave to Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996, Implied Terms Under Sale of Goods Act 1979, Contractual Specification Interpretation, Extension of Time Under S.80(5) Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Commercial Law Sale of Goods Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Leave to Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 Implied Terms Under Sale of Goods Act 1979 Contractual Specification Interpretation Extension of Time Under S.80(5) Arbitration Act 1996

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

Parties

S

Claimant

A

Defendant

B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time, Challenge Under S.68, and Leave to Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) and/or (c) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether extension of time under s.80(5) Arbitration Act 1996 should be granted
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The seller failed to demonstrate any serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) or (c) Arbitration Act 1996, as there was no clear common ground abandoned by the buyers and the tribunal's findings were within the scope of the parties' pleaded cases and submissions. The delay in making the applications was substantial and attributable to the seller's inactivity, and the strength of the challenge was insufficient to justify an extension of time. Leave to appeal under s.69 was refused as the questions posed were not ones the tribunal was asked to determine, involved mixed law and fact, and the tribunal's decision was not obviously wrong.

Court Disposition

Applications for extension of time, challenge under s.68, and leave to appeal under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 refused.

Orders

  • Seller's application for extension of time under s.80(5) Arbitration Act 1996 refused.
  • Seller's challenge under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.