F Ltd. v M Ltd. [2009] EWHC 275 (TCC) (11 February 2009)

F Ltd. v M Ltd. [2009] EWHC 275 (TCC) (11 February 2009)

The court held that while the arbitral tribunal may have decided certain points on grounds not expressly argued by the parties, particularly regarding the construction of the Consortium Agreement, this did not amount to a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice under section 68. The claimant bore responsibility for properly pleading and arguing its case, and the tribunal's conclusions on the contractual provisions were either inevitable or had been considered and rejected by the majority, including alternative bases raised by the dissenting arbitrator. No substantial injustice was demonstrated that would justify remission of the award.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 275 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: F LTD; Defendant: M LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / High Court Judgment on Application to Remit Arbitral Award Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application to remit the arbitral award refused.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Remission of Arbitral Award, Consortium Agreements, Interpretation of Contractual Liability Clauses, Natural Justice in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Construction Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Remission of Arbitral Award Consortium Agreements Interpretation of Contractual Liability Clauses Natural Justice 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F LTD

Claimant

M LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / High Court Judgment on Application to Remit Arbitral Award Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding points not argued by the parties
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to deal with all issues put to it or exceeded its powers
  3. 3 Whether any such irregularity caused substantial injustice to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the arbitral tribunal may have decided certain points on grounds not expressly argued by the parties, particularly regarding the construction of the Consortium Agreement, this did not amount to a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice under section 68. The claimant bore responsibility for properly pleading and arguing its case, and the tribunal's conclusions on the contractual provisions were either inevitable or had been considered and rejected by the majority, including alternative bases raised by the dissenting arbitrator. No substantial injustice was demonstrated that would justify remission of the award.

Court Disposition

Application to remit the arbitral award refused.

Orders

  • Application under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.
  • No remission of the award to the arbitral tribunal.