T v V & W [2018] EWHC 1492 (Comm) (16 May 2018)

T v V & W [2018] EWHC 1492 (Comm) (16 May 2018)

No irregularity falling within section 68(2) Arbitration Act 1996 occurred because the arbitrator properly applied the peremptory order regime under section 41(7)(c), and the right to a hearing under Article 19 LCIA Rules was overridden by T's failure to comply with the order; no substantial injustice was demonstrated.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1492 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: T; Defendants: V & W; Arbitrator: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Challenge to Arbitration Award Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Award
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Serious Irregularity, Peremptory Orders, LCIA Rules, Right to Hearing
Arbitration Commercial Law Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Serious Irregularity Peremptory Orders LCIA Rules Right to Hearing

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T

Claimant

V & W

Defendants

A

Arbitrator

Procedural Posture

Challenge to Arbitration Award Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to afford oral hearing under Article 19 LCIA Rules constitutes serious irregularity under section 68 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether arbitrator's conduct under section 41(7)(c) Arbitration Act 1996 was proper
  3. 3 Whether substantial injustice resulted from alleged irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

No irregularity falling within section 68(2) Arbitration Act 1996 occurred because the arbitrator properly applied the peremptory order regime under section 41(7)(c), and the right to a hearing under Article 19 LCIA Rules was overridden by T's failure to comply with the order; no substantial injustice was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • section 68 application dismissed