JD Wetherspoon Plc v Jay Mar Estates [2007] EWHC 856 (TCC) (04 April 2007)

JD Wetherspoon Plc v Jay Mar Estates [2007] EWHC 856 (TCC) (04 April 2007)

There was no serious irregularity because the issue of the value of fittings was within the scope of the arbitration and both parties had the opportunity to address it; even if there had been an irregularity, it did not cause substantial injustice as the relevant comparable was not decisive to the outcome and no further evidence would have made a material difference.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 856 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: JD Wetherspoon PLC; Defendant: Jay Mar Estates
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68(2) / Judgment on Application to Remit Arbitration Award for Serious Irregularity
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Rent Review Arbitration, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Substantial Injustice, Use of Arbitrator's Expertise
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Rent Review Arbitration Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Substantial Injustice Use of Arbitrator's Expertise

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JD Wetherspoon PLC

Claimant

Jay Mar Estates

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68(2) / Judgment on Application to Remit Arbitration Award for Serious Irregularity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity by failing to give parties an opportunity to address a valuation figure 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 was within the scope of the arbitration and both parties had the opportunity to address it; even if there had been an irregularity, it did not cause substantial injustice as the relevant comparable was not decisive to the outcome and no further evidence would have made a material difference.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

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