Morris Homes (West Midlands) Ltd v Keay & Anor [2013] EWHC 932 (TCC) (18 April 2013)

Morris Homes (West Midlands) Ltd v Keay & Anor [2013] EWHC 932 (TCC) (18 April 2013)

Leave to appeal refused because neither question of law identified met the statutory threshold under s.69(3) Arbitration Act 1996: the first was not of general public importance nor open to serious doubt, and the second was not obviously wrong nor open to serious doubt; arbitrator's findings were consistent with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 932 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Morris Homes (West Midlands) Limited; Defendant: Antony Paul Keay; Defendant: Jeffrey David Keay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Damages Assessment, Arbitration Appeals, Development Agreements
Construction Law Arbitration Contract Interpretation Damages Assessment Arbitration Appeals Development Agreements

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morris Homes (West Midlands) Limited

Claimant

Antony Paul Keay

Defendant

Jeffrey David Keay

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether obligation to 'diligently carry out the Works' under clause 3.1 is independent of 'reasonable endeavours' under clause 4
  2. 2 Whether damages assessment should account for monetary benefit obtained by a close associate of claimant due to deferred expenditure

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because neither question of law identified met the statutory threshold under s.69(3) Arbitration Act 1996: the first was not of general public importance nor open to serious doubt, and the second was not obviously wrong nor open to serious doubt; arbitrator's findings were consistent with established legal principles and based on facts.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed