Cakebread & Anor v Fitzwilliam [2021] EWHC 472 (Comm) (03 March 2021)

Cakebread & Anor v Fitzwilliam [2021] EWHC 472 (Comm) (03 March 2021)

The arbitrator's essential reasoning followed the parties' submissions; claimants had fair opportunity to address all essential building blocks; no serious irregularity under s.68 was established; restitutionary point was not an essential building block; claimants failed to prove loss as required in deceit.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 472 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Stuart Alan Charles Cakebread; Claimant: Juliette Dora Levy; Defendant: Arthur Panayotis Fitzwilliam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed; no intervention under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Measure of Damages in Deceit, Restitutionary Damages, Duty of Fairness Under S.33, Loss Assessment in Tort
Arbitration Commercial Law Tort Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Measure of Damages in Deceit Restitutionary Damages Duty of Fairness Under S.33 Loss Assessment in Tort

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Alan Charles Cakebread

Claimant

Juliette Dora Levy

Claimant

Arthur Panayotis Fitzwilliam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award was affected by serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator decided the case on a new point not argued by the parties
  3. 3 Whether the claimants were deprived of a fair opportunity to address essential issues

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's essential reasoning followed the parties' submissions; claimants had fair opportunity to address all essential building blocks; no serious irregularity under s.68 was established; restitutionary point was not an essential building block; claimants failed to prove loss as required in deceit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no intervention under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996.