Margulead Ltd. v Exide Technologies [2004] EWHC 1019 (Comm) (06 May 2004)

Margulead Ltd. v Exide Technologies [2004] EWHC 1019 (Comm) (06 May 2004)

The arbitrator's refusal to allow a right of oral reply did not amount to serious irregularity as the procedure adopted was fair and gave both parties a reasonable opportunity to present their cases. The failure to expressly address the affirmation argument in the award was not a failure to deal with an issue but, at most, a deficiency of reasoning, which does not engage section 68(2)(d). No substantial injustice was caused. The application to set aside the award fails.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1019 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Margulead Ltd; Defendant: Exide Technologies
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity in Arbitration, Right of Reply in Arbitral Procedure, Failure to Deal With Issues, Affirmation and Waiver in Contract, Mutual Mistake, Procedural Fairness
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity in Arbitration Right of Reply in Arbitral Procedure Failure to Deal With Issues Affirmation and Waiver in Contract Mutual Mistake Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margulead Ltd

Claimant

Exide Technologies

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to allow claimant's counsel a right of oral reply constituted serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether failure to address affirmation argument in award constituted serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's refusal to allow a right of oral reply did not amount to serious irregularity as the procedure adopted was fair and gave both parties a reasonable opportunity to present their cases. The failure to expressly address the affirmation argument in the award was not a failure to deal with an issue but, at most, a deficiency of reasoning, which does not engage section 68(2)(d). No substantial injustice was caused. The application to set aside the award fails.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed
  • No order setting aside or remitting the arbitral award