A v B [2018] EWHC 3366 (TCC) (27 July 2018)

A v B [2018] EWHC 3366 (TCC) (27 July 2018)

The tribunal's exclusion of Mr X's oral evidence was a proper exercise of procedural discretion, not a serious irregularity under s.68; the process was fair, both parties had opportunity to address admissibility, and the excluded evidence was immaterial to the outcome. No substantial injustice was caused.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3366 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award for Serious Irregularity
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Admissibility of Evidence in Arbitration, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Contractual Notice Provisions, Remedies for Procedural Irregularity
Arbitration Contract Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Admissibility of Evidence in Arbitration Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Contractual Notice Provisions Remedies for Procedural Irregularity

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award for Serious Irregularity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal's exclusion of oral evidence constituted a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether any such irregularity caused substantial injustice to the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal failed to comply with its general duty under s.33 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's exclusion of Mr X's oral evidence was a proper exercise of procedural discretion, not a serious irregularity under s.68; the process was fair, both parties had opportunity to address admissibility, and the excluded evidence was immaterial to the outcome. No substantial injustice was caused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order to set aside or remit the arbitral award
  • Costs and directions for any application for permission to appeal agreed between parties