Checkpoint Ltd. v Strathclyde Pension Fund [2003] EWCA Civ 84 (06 February 2003)

Checkpoint Ltd. v Strathclyde Pension Fund [2003] EWCA Civ 84 (06 February 2003)

The arbitrator's use of his own professional experience in evaluating the comparability of properties and market demand was within the scope of his expertise as required by the lease and did not constitute a serious irregularity under s.68(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrator was not required to address every subsidiary point, only the critical issues, and no substantial injustice was caused to the appellant.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 84
Parties
Appellant: Checkpoint Ltd.; Respondent: Strathclyde Pension Fund
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration Award (chancery Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Use of Arbitrator's Personal Knowledge, Rent Review Arbitration, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Open Market Rent Determination
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Property Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Use of Arbitrator's Personal Knowledge Rent Review Arbitration Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Open Market Rent Determination

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Checkpoint Ltd.

Appellant

Strathclyde Pension Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Award (chancery Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's use of personal experience without giving parties opportunity to comment constituted a serious irregularity under s.68(2) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether failure to address evidence of over-supply and poor demand for comparable premises was a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's use of his own professional experience in evaluating the comparability of properties and market demand was within the scope of his expertise as required by the lease and did not constitute a serious irregularity under s.68(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrator was not required to address every subsidiary point, only the critical issues, and no substantial injustice was caused to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed