JD Wetherspoon Plc v Jay Mar Estates

JD Wetherspoon Plc v Jay Mar Estates

There was no serious irregularity because the issue of the value of fittings and fixtures was within the scope of the arbitration and both parties had made submissions on it; the arbitrator was entitled to reach his own conclusion based on the evidence and his expertise. Even if there had been an irregularity, it did not cause substantial injustice as the main comparable (Barracuda) was unaffected and no further evidence would have changed the outcome.

Parties
Claimant: JD Wetherspoon PLC; Defendant: Jay Mar Estates
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (rent Review) / Judgment on Application to Remit Arbitral Award Under S.68(2) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity in Arbitration, Substantial Injustice, Rent Review, Use of Expert Evidence by Arbitrator, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Commercial Property Serious Irregularity in Arbitration Substantial Injustice Rent Review Use of Expert Evidence by Arbitrator Procedural Fairness 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JD Wetherspoon PLC

Claimant

Jay Mar Estates

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (rent Review) / Judgment on Application to Remit Arbitral Award Under S.68(2) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under s.68(2) Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to give parties an opportunity to address a valuation figure (£150,000) used in the award
  2. 2 Whether any such irregularity caused substantial injustice to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

There was no serious irregularity because the issue of the value of fittings and fixtures was within the scope of the arbitration and both parties had made submissions on it; the arbitrator was entitled to reach his own conclusion based on the evidence and his expertise. Even if there had been an irregularity, it did not cause substantial injustice as the main comparable (Barracuda) was unaffected and no further evidence would have changed the outcome.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under s.68(2) Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.