BPY v MXV [2023] EWHC 82 (Comm) (20 January 2023)

BPY v MXV [2023] EWHC 82 (Comm) (20 January 2023)

The court held that none of BPY's grounds established a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrator acted within her powers, gave both parties a fair opportunity to present their cases, did not breach the duty of fairness, and no substantial injustice was shown. The costs award was within the arbitrator's discretion, and the issue of unlawfully obtained evidence was not properly raised in the arbitration.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 82 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: BPY; Defendant: MXV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Challenge to Arbitral Award / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Awards
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996, Apparent Bias, Functus Officio, Public Policy in Arbitration, Costs in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Apparent Bias Functus Officio Public Policy in Arbitration Costs 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BPY

Claimant

MXV

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Challenge to Arbitral Award / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Awards

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 affecting the arbitral awards
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to comply with s.33 duty of fairness and impartiality
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers or was functus officio

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that none of BPY's grounds established a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrator acted within her powers, gave both parties a fair opportunity to present their cases, did not breach the duty of fairness, and no substantial injustice was shown. The costs award was within the arbitrator's discretion, and the issue of unlawfully obtained evidence was not properly raised in the arbitration.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • BPY's applications to set aside the Merits Award and Costs Award are dismissed.