L v R

L v R

There was no agreement or mutual understanding that only a declaratory award would be made, nor was this reasonably apparent to the tribunal. The tribunal acted within its powers in making a money award. The Ormos Claim was not proven to be reasonably arguable, so no substantial injustice arose. The tribunal's prohibition on future set-offs, even if irregular, caused no substantial injustice as the Ormos Claim could not have been set off against any further claims.

Parties
Claimant: L; Defendant: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award for Serious Irregularity
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Set Off, Declaratory Vs Money Award, Insolvency Set Off
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Set Off Declaratory Vs Money Award Insolvency Set Off

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Claimant

R

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award for Serious Irregularity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity by making a money award instead of a declaratory award contrary to parties' agreement or expectation
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal's prohibition on the claimant advancing set-offs in future proceedings was a serious irregularity
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered substantial injustice as a result of the alleged irregularities

Ratio Decidendi

There was no agreement or mutual understanding that only a declaratory award would be made, nor was this reasonably apparent to the tribunal. The tribunal acted within its powers in making a money award. The Ormos Claim was not proven to be reasonably arguable, so no substantial injustice arose. The tribunal's prohibition on future set-offs, even if irregular, caused no substantial injustice as the Ormos Claim could not have been set off against any further claims.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed