MHA Advisory Ltd v Shiran Wynter

MHA Advisory Ltd v Shiran Wynter

The applicant failed to exhaust available recourse under Section 57 Arbitration Act 1996 by not seeking clarification of the award before applying to set it aside; in any event, the arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under Section 68(2)(a) or (d) as he addressed all essential issues and made a clear determination on the reasonableness of the restrictive covenants' duration, even if briefly reasoned. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, on the merits.

Parties
Claimant: MHA Advisory Ltd; Defendant: Mr Shiran Wynter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity in Arbitration, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Restrictive Covenants, Enforceability of Restraint of Trade, Burden of Proof in Arbitration, Section 57 Arbitration Act 1996, Remedies for Inadequate Reasoning in Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Employment Law Serious Irregularity in Arbitration Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Restrictive Covenants Enforceability of Restraint of Trade Burden of Proof in Arbitration +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MHA Advisory Ltd

Claimant

Mr Shiran Wynter

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under Section 68(2)(a) and/or (d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to adjudicate on key conflicts of evidence and/or failing to deal with all issues put to him
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was required to seek clarification under Section 57 before applying to set aside the award
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's reasoning and findings on the reasonableness of the restrictive covenants' duration amounted to a dereliction of duty

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to exhaust available recourse under Section 57 Arbitration Act 1996 by not seeking clarification of the award before applying to set it aside; in any event, the arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under Section 68(2)(a) or (d) as he addressed all essential issues and made a clear determination on the reasonableness of the restrictive covenants' duration, even if briefly reasoned. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, on the merits.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside the arbitration award is dismissed for failure to exhaust recourse under Section 57 Arbitration Act 1996 and, alternatively, on the merits.
  • Parties invited to agree a form of order and costs; if not agreed, further hearing to be scheduled.