St George's Investment Company v Gemini Consulting Ltd [2004] EWHC 2353 (Ch) (08 October 2004)

St George's Investment Company v Gemini Consulting Ltd [2004] EWHC 2353 (Ch) (08 October 2004)

The arbitrator committed a serious irregularity by adopting a valuation methodology that combined elements of both parties' approaches in a manner not argued or agreed, without giving the parties an opportunity to comment, resulting in double counting and substantial injustice to the claimant. The award must be remitted for reconsideration under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2353 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: St George's Investment Company; Defendant: Gemini Consulting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 / Judgment on Application to Remit Arbitration Award
Outcome
Award remitted to arbitrator for reconsideration under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 due to serious irregularity and substantial injustice.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity in Arbitration, Rent Review, Remission of Award, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Section 33 Arbitration Act 1996, Onerous Lease Terms, Double Counting in Valuation
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Serious Irregularity in Arbitration Rent Review Remission of Award Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Section 33 Arbitration Act 1996 Onerous Lease Terms +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St George's Investment Company

Claimant

Gemini Consulting Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 / Judgment on Application to Remit Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by making an award on a basis not argued by the parties
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's methodology resulted in substantial injustice to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator committed a serious irregularity by adopting a valuation methodology that combined elements of both parties' approaches in a manner not argued or agreed, without giving the parties an opportunity to comment, resulting in double counting and substantial injustice to the claimant. The award must be remitted for reconsideration under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Award remitted to arbitrator for reconsideration under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 due to serious irregularity and substantial injustice.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 1 October 2003 is remitted in whole to the arbitrator for reconsideration.