Groundshire v VHE Construction [2001] EWHC 8 (TCC) (15 February 2001)

Groundshire v VHE Construction [2001] EWHC 8 (TCC) (15 February 2001)

The application was rejected because the applicant failed to demonstrate serious irregularity causing substantial injustice under s.68, failed to exhaust available recourse under s.57, and removal of the arbitrator was not justified; the arbitrator's conduct did not warrant court intervention.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 8 (TCC)
Parties
Applicant: Groundshire; Respondent: VHE Construction
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (high Court, Technology and Construction Court) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award and Remove Arbitrator
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Removal of Arbitrator Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24, General Duty of Tribunal (s.33), Remedies for Arbitral Misconduct, Valuation of Variations, Standing Time, Inflation Adjustments in Construction Contracts
Arbitration Construction Law Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Removal of Arbitrator Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24 General Duty of Tribunal (s.33) Remedies for Arbitral Misconduct Valuation of Variations +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Groundshire

Applicant

VHE Construction

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (high Court, Technology and Construction Court) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award and Remove Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator should be removed under s.24 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the applicant exhausted available recourse under s.57 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The application was rejected because the applicant failed to demonstrate serious irregularity causing substantial injustice under s.68, failed to exhaust available recourse under s.57, and removal of the arbitrator was not justified; the arbitrator's conduct did not warrant court intervention.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed