Shaw & Anor v MFP Foundations and Pilings Ltd [2010] EWHC 1839 (TCC) (23 July 2010)

Shaw & Anor v MFP Foundations and Pilings Ltd [2010] EWHC 1839 (TCC) (23 July 2010)

The arbitrator addressed all issues put to him except one minor item, which was later corrected without prejudice. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was shown under s.68. Any arguable error of law under s.69 related to a trivial sum and would not substantially affect the parties' rights. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1839 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Christopher Shaw and Mrs Gabriele Shaw; Defendant: MFP Foundations and Pilings Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (challenge to Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69 Arbitration Act 1996 and for Extension of Time
Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Challenge to Arbitral Award, Serious Irregularity, Appeal on Point of Law, Extension of Time, Liquidated Damages, Prolongation Costs, Measure of Damages
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Challenge to Arbitral Award Serious Irregularity Appeal on Point of Law Extension of Time Liquidated Damages +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Christopher Shaw and Mrs Gabriele Shaw

Claimant

MFP Foundations and Pilings Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (challenge to Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69 Arbitration Act 1996 and for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator failed to deal with all issues put to him (s.68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996)
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on a question of law (s.69 Arbitration Act 1996)
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time for appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator addressed all issues put to him except one minor item, which was later corrected without prejudice. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was shown under s.68. Any arguable error of law under s.69 related to a trivial sum and would not substantially affect the parties' rights. The applications for challenge, permission to appeal, and extension of time all fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Challenge under section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed
  • Permission to appeal under section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 refused