WSB v FOL (Re Arbitration Act 1996 and a JAMS Arbitration) [2022] EWHC 586 (Comm) (09 February 2022)

WSB v FOL (Re Arbitration Act 1996 and a JAMS Arbitration) [2022] EWHC 586 (Comm) (09 February 2022)

There was no real prospect of success or good reason to set aside the order dismissing WSB's challenges under s.67, s.68, or s.69. The arbitrator's findings were open to him, there was no serious irregularity or error of law, and the costs and forfeiture issues were properly determined under the Arbitration Act and JAMS Rules. The application was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 586 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: WSB; Defendant: FOL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Application to Set Aside Order Dismissing Challenge to Arbitration Award Under CPR 3.3(4)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Arbitration Award Challenge, Serious Irregularity (s.68), Jurisdiction (s.67), Permission to Appeal (s.69), Costs in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Setting Aside Orders Arbitration Award Challenge Serious Irregularity (s.68) Jurisdiction (s.67) Permission to Appeal (s.69) Costs in Arbitration

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WSB

Claimant

FOL

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Application to Set Aside Order Dismissing Challenge to Arbitration Award Under CPR 3.3(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside the order dismissing WSB's challenge to the arbitration award under s.67, s.68, and s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 without a hearing
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious irregularity or error of law in the arbitration award
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture and award costs

Ratio Decidendi

There was no real prospect of success or good reason to set aside the order dismissing WSB's challenges under s.67, s.68, or s.69. The arbitrator's findings were open to him, there was no serious irregularity or error of law, and the costs and forfeiture issues were properly determined under the Arbitration Act and JAMS Rules. The application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside order dismissed
  • WSB to pay FOL's costs of the application, summarily assessed at £50,000