SCM Financial Overseas Ltd v Raga Establishment Ltd (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 1008 (Comm) (03 May 2018)

SCM Financial Overseas Ltd v Raga Establishment Ltd (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 1008 (Comm) (03 May 2018)

The arbitrators' refusal to defer the award pending the outcome of Ukrainian court proceedings was not unfair and did not breach section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrators acted within their wide procedural discretion, balancing the potential relevance of the Ukrainian judgment against the risk of indeterminate delay and prejudice to Raga. There was no irregularity within section 68, so the issue of substantial injustice did not arise.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1008 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: SCM Financial Overseas Ltd; Defendant: Raga Establishment Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Challenge to Arbitration Award Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68 / Judgment on Section 68 Application
Outcome
Section 68 challenge dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Section 33 Arbitration Act 1996, Procedural Fairness, Delay and Deferral in Arbitration, Substantial Injustice
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Section 33 Arbitration Act 1996 Procedural Fairness Delay and Deferral in Arbitration Substantial Injustice

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SCM Financial Overseas Ltd

Claimant

Raga Establishment Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Challenge to Arbitration Award Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68 / Judgment on Section 68 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether arbitrators' refusal to defer award pending outcome of Ukrainian court proceedings constituted serious irregularity under section 68 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether such refusal breached section 33 duty to conduct arbitration fairly
  3. 3 Whether breach caused substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrators' refusal to defer the award pending the outcome of Ukrainian court proceedings was not unfair and did not breach section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrators acted within their wide procedural discretion, balancing the potential relevance of the Ukrainian judgment against the risk of indeterminate delay and prejudice to Raga. There was no irregularity within section 68, so the issue of substantial injustice did not arise.

Court Disposition

Section 68 challenge dismissed

Orders

  • SCM's application under section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed