A v B

A v B

The tribunal's exclusion of Mr X's oral evidence was a proper exercise of its procedural discretion, not a serious irregularity. Both parties had fair opportunity to address admissibility. The excluded evidence was not material to the invoice claims or counterclaims, so no substantial injustice arose. The requirements of Section 33 and the agreed procedure were met.

Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/ Remit Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Admissibility of Evidence in Arbitration, Procedural Fairness, Contractual Notice Provisions
Arbitration Contract Law Serious Irregularity Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Admissibility of Evidence in Arbitration Procedural Fairness Contractual Notice Provisions

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 (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/ Remit Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of oral evidence of Mr X amounted to a serious irregularity under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether any such irregularity caused substantial injustice to the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to comply with agreed procedure or its general duty under Section 33

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's exclusion of Mr X's oral evidence was a proper exercise of its procedural discretion, not a serious irregularity. Both parties had fair opportunity to address admissibility. The excluded evidence was not material to the invoice claims or counterclaims, so no substantial injustice arose. The requirements of Section 33 and the agreed procedure were met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed