Field & Anor v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd & Anor

Field & Anor v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd & Anor

The arbitrator did not breach the agreed procedure or exceed his powers; he evaluated evidence presented by the parties, used his professional experience, and was not required to notify parties of his intended findings in advance. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established under s68 Arbitration Act 1996.

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
Challenge to Arbitral Award / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S68, Rent Review Arbitration, Procedural Fairness, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S68 Rent Review Arbitration Procedural Fairness Jurisdiction of Arbitrator

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

Challenge to Arbitral Award / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator failed to conduct the arbitration in accordance with agreed procedure under s68(1)(c) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers under s68(1)(b) Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the award 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, used his professional experience, and was not required to notify parties of his intended findings in advance. No serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established under s68 Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed