Rollitt (t/a CD Consult) v Ballard [2017] EWHC 1500 (TCC) (23 June 2017)

Rollitt (t/a CD Consult) v Ballard [2017] EWHC 1500 (TCC) (23 June 2017)

The claimant's delay of 88 days in bringing the arbitration claim was substantial and not reasonably explained; the delay was not caused by the defendant or arbitrator. The merits of the claim were weak, as even if permission to appeal were granted, success would not alter the outcome due to the arbitrator's finding of invalidity of the arbitration agreement. The challenge to the costs award did not meet the high threshold for serious irregularity. Therefore, the court refused to grant an extension of time, permission to appeal, or permission to amend the claim.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1500 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Ian Rollitt (trading as CD Consult); Defendant: Christopher Leonard Ballard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (application to Challenge Arbitral Awards) / Application for Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, and Permission to Amend Claim
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Arbitration Act 1996, Serious Irregularity Challenge, Permission to Appeal on Point of Law, Costs Award in Arbitration
Arbitration Civil Procedure Extension of Time for Appeal Arbitration Act 1996 Serious Irregularity Challenge Permission to Appeal on Point of Law Costs Award in Arbitration

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

Parties

Ian Rollitt (trading as CD Consult)

Claimant

Christopher Leonard Ballard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (application to Challenge Arbitral Awards) / Application for Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, and Permission to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time for challenging arbitration award under section 79(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether to grant permission to appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether to grant permission to amend claim to challenge costs award for serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's delay of 88 days in bringing the arbitration claim was substantial and not reasonably explained; the delay was not caused by the defendant or arbitrator. The merits of the claim were weak, as even if permission to appeal were granted, success would not alter the outcome due to the arbitrator's finding of invalidity of the arbitration agreement. The challenge to the costs award did not meet the high threshold for serious irregularity. Therefore, the court refused to grant an extension of time, permission to appeal, or permission to amend the claim.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Refusal to grant extension of time for bringing arbitration claim under section 79(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996
  • Refusal to grant permission to appeal under section 69(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996