Guardcliffe Properties Ltd v City & St James

Guardcliffe Properties Ltd v City & St James

The arbitrator committed serious irregularities by making substantial deductions for a notional rent free period and upper floors liability, and by relying on the premium for 40 Collingwood Street, without giving the parties, especially the Claimant, an opportunity to comment or investigate. These irregularities breached the duty of fairness under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and caused substantial injustice. The appropriate remedy is to remit the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

Parties
Claimant: Guardcliffe Properties Limited; Defendant: City & St James
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (high Court, Chancery Division) / 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 Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Leave to Appeal on Point of Law Under S.69, Rent Review Arbitration, Natural Justice in Arbitral Proceedings
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Commercial Property Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Leave to Appeal on Point of Law Under S.69 Rent Review Arbitration Natural Justice in Arbitral Proceedings

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 (high Court, Chancery Division) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by making substantial deductions in the rent review award without giving parties an opportunity to comment
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator made an error of law in interpreting the lease regarding repair obligations
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator committed serious irregularities by making substantial deductions for a notional rent free period and upper floors liability, and by relying on the premium for 40 Collingwood Street, without giving the parties, especially the Claimant, an opportunity to comment or investigate. These irregularities breached the duty of fairness under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and caused substantial injustice. The appropriate remedy is to remit the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

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.