Rollitt (t/a CD Consult) v Ballard

Rollitt (t/a CD Consult) v Ballard

The claimant's delay of 88 days in bringing the arbitration claim was substantial and not reasonably explained. The claimant was responsible for ensuring timely payment of the arbitrator's fees to obtain the award and preserve the right to challenge. The merits of the application were weak, and even if permission to appeal had been granted, it would have been refused. The challenge to the costs award did not meet the high threshold for serious irregularity. Therefore, the court refused to extend time, refused permission to appeal, and refused permission to amend the claim to challenge the costs award.

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

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Rollitt (trading as CD Consult)

Claimant

Christopher Leonard Ballard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, and Permission to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for appealing against an arbitration award under section 79(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether to grant permission to adduce further grounds and evidence in support of the application for extension of time
  3. 3 Whether to grant permission to appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on a point of law

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's delay of 88 days in bringing the arbitration claim was substantial and not reasonably explained. The claimant was responsible for ensuring timely payment of the arbitrator's fees to obtain the award and preserve the right to challenge. The merits of the application were weak, and even if permission to appeal had been granted, it would have been refused. The challenge to the costs award did not meet the high threshold for serious irregularity. Therefore, the court refused to extend time, refused permission to appeal, and refused permission to amend the claim to challenge the costs award.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

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