Pulis v Crystal Palace

Pulis v Crystal Palace

The tribunal did not ignore material evidence or submissions; it considered the oral evidence and tax arguments, and its findings were reasoned and supported by contemporaneous documents and probabilities. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established. The s.68 challenge is dismissed and the arbitral awards are enforced.

Parties
Claimant: Tony Pulis; Defendant: Crystal Palace
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (s.68 Challenge and Enforcement) / Judgment on S.68 Challenge and Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed; arbitral awards enforced
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Repudiatory Breach of Contract, Damages and Mitigation, Tax Consequences of Damages, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Arbitration Employment Law Sports Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Fraudulent Misrepresentation Repudiatory Breach of Contract Damages and Mitigation Tax Consequences of Damages +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Pulis

Claimant

Crystal Palace

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (s.68 Challenge and Enforcement) / Judgment on S.68 Challenge and Enforcement of Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to address material evidence amounting to serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) and (d) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to deal with tax consequences and mitigation arguments on damages
  3. 3 Whether any such irregularity caused substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not ignore material evidence or submissions; it considered the oral evidence and tax arguments, and its findings were reasoned and supported by contemporaneous documents and probabilities. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established. The s.68 challenge is dismissed and the arbitral awards are enforced.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; arbitral awards enforced

Orders

  • Application under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed
  • Partial Final Award and Final Award enforced as to all sums, interest, and costs