Field & Anor v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 3440 (Ch) (17 December 2020)

Field & Anor v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 3440 (Ch) (17 December 2020)

The arbitrator did not breach the agreed procedure or exceed his powers; he evaluated evidence presented by the parties using his professional experience in an adversarial process. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established under s68 Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3440 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Field; Claimant: Sarah Ellen Barnes; Defendant: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited; Defendant: First Transpennine Express Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S68 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S68, Rent Review Arbitration, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S68 Rent Review Arbitration Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Procedural Fairness 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Field

Claimant

Sarah Ellen Barnes

Claimant

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Defendant

First Transpennine Express Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S68 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator failed to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the agreed procedure under s68(2)(c) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers under s68(2)(b) Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether any alleged irregularity caused substantial injustice to the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator did not breach the agreed procedure or exceed his powers; he evaluated evidence presented by the parties using his professional experience in an adversarial process. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established under s68 Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed