Persaud v Beynon

Persaud v Beynon

The arbitrator did not exceed his substantive jurisdiction as his powers derived from the arbitration clause in the 1996 Agreement, and the directions and expert reports did not confine his jurisdiction. There was no serious irregularity as Dr Persaud had notice of the issues, chose not to give evidence, and failed to provide disclosure. The arbitrator's findings on bad faith and the valuation approach were within his remit and did not cause substantial injustice.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Mark Christopher Persaud; Defendant: Dr Jonathan Andrew Beynon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Applications under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Serious Irregularity, Good Faith in Contractual Performance, Damages Assessment
Arbitration Contract Law Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Serious Irregularity Good Faith in Contractual Performance Damages Assessment

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Mark Christopher Persaud

Claimant

Dr Jonathan Andrew Beynon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator exceeded his substantive jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious irregularity under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 affecting the award
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator was entitled to make findings of bad faith and disregard net asset deficiency in the valuation

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator did not exceed his substantive jurisdiction as his powers derived from the arbitration clause in the 1996 Agreement, and the directions and expert reports did not confine his jurisdiction. There was no serious irregularity as Dr Persaud had notice of the issues, chose not to give evidence, and failed to provide disclosure. The arbitrator's findings on bad faith and the valuation approach were within his remit and did not cause substantial injustice.

Court Disposition

Applications under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.

Orders

  • Awards of 9 May and 4 July 2005 to be enforced as a judgment or order of the Court under Section 66(1) Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Dr Persaud to pay the costs of any judgment that may be entered.