A v B [2017] EWHC 596 (Comm) (23 March 2017)

A v B [2017] EWHC 596 (Comm) (23 March 2017)

The application failed because the tribunal's conduct did not amount to a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996. The tribunal acted within its discretion in evaluating evidence, deciding procedural matters, and reserving certain issues for later determination. No fundamental issue was left unaddressed, no ambiguity or uncertainty existed as to the effect of the award, and no relevant admission of irregularity was made by the tribunal or any person vested with powers. The high threshold for s.68 was not met and no substantial injustice was caused or likely to be caused.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 596 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Challenge, Serious Irregularity, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Sale of Goods, Evidentiary Assessment, Tribunal Procedure
Arbitration Commercial Law Contract Law Arbitration Challenge Serious Irregularity Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Sale of Goods Evidentiary Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 affecting the award
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to comply with s.33 Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal failed to deal with all issues put to it

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the tribunal's conduct did not amount to a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996. The tribunal acted within its discretion in evaluating evidence, deciding procedural matters, and reserving certain issues for later determination. No fundamental issue was left unaddressed, no ambiguity or uncertainty existed as to the effect of the award, and no relevant admission of irregularity was made by the tribunal or any person vested with powers. The high threshold for s.68 was not met and no substantial injustice was caused or likely to be caused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 application dismissed