Guardcliffe Properties Ltd v City & St James [2003] EWHC 215 (Ch) (5 February 2003)

Guardcliffe Properties Ltd v City & St James [2003] EWHC 215 (Ch) (5 February 2003)

The arbitrator committed serious irregularity by making substantial deductions for a rent free period and upper floor liabilities, and by relying on a comparable without clarifying the basis for a significant premium, all without giving the parties an opportunity to comment. These irregularities breached the duty of fairness under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and caused substantial injustice to the Claimant. Leave to appeal on the alleged error of law was refused as the relevant findings were consistent with the lease obligations.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 215 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Guardcliffe Properties Limited; Defendant: City & St James
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (rent Review) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Award remitted to arbitrator for reconsideration; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity in Arbitration, Rent Review, Natural Justice in Arbitral Proceedings, Leave to Appeal on Question of Law, Remittal of Arbitral Award
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Commercial Property Serious Irregularity in Arbitration Rent Review Natural Justice in Arbitral Proceedings Leave to Appeal on Question of Law Remittal of Arbitral 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guardcliffe Properties Limited

Claimant

City & St James

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (rent Review) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by making deductions not raised by the parties and relying on comparables without sufficient evidence
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for alleged errors of law in the award

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator committed serious irregularity by making substantial deductions for a rent free period and upper floor liabilities, and by relying on a comparable without clarifying the basis for a significant premium, all without giving the parties an opportunity to comment. These irregularities breached the duty of fairness under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and caused substantial injustice to the Claimant. Leave to appeal on the alleged error of law was refused as the relevant findings were consistent with the lease obligations.

Court Disposition

Award remitted to arbitrator for reconsideration; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The Award is remitted to the Arbitrator for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.
  • Leave to appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is refused.