The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Ltd [2014] EWHC 4375 (TCC) (19 December 2014)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Ltd [2014] EWHC 4375 (TCC) (19 December 2014)

The tribunal did not fail to deal with essential issues because, having found that Y failed to comply with process requirements that were conditions precedent to termination, it was unnecessary to address the further liability and quantum issues raised by Y. The application did not meet the high threshold for serious irregularity under s.68(2)(d).

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4375 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT; Defendant: RAYTHEON SYSTEMS LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68(2)(d) / High Court Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity in Arbitration, Failure to Deal With Issues, Repudiatory Breach, Unjust Enrichment, Termination for Cause, Quantum Assessment
Arbitration Contract Law Technology Law Serious Irregularity in Arbitration Failure to Deal With Issues Repudiatory Breach Unjust Enrichment Termination for Cause +1 more

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Claimant

RAYTHEON SYSTEMS LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68(2)(d) / High Court Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to deal with all issues put to it under s.68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to address the legal consequences of non-compliance with contract notice provisions
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal failed to assess the seriousness of defaults justifying termination

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not fail to deal with essential issues because, having found that Y failed to comply with process requirements that were conditions precedent to termination, it was unnecessary to address the further liability and quantum issues raised by Y. The application did not meet the high threshold for serious irregularity under s.68(2)(d).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside or declare the arbitral award of no effect is refused.