Sowden v Smyth-Tyrrell & Anor [2017] EWHC 2477 (Ch) (06 October 2017)

Sowden v Smyth-Tyrrell & Anor [2017] EWHC 2477 (Ch) (06 October 2017)

The Case D Notice was valid despite referencing the wrong clause, as the breach and remedy were correctly particularised and the tenant was not misled. The arbitrator was not required to deal with waiver/acquiescence arguments as they were peripheral and unsupported by evidence. The arbitrator provided sufficient reasons for refusing modification under article 5(a). No irregularity amounted to 'serious irregularity' causing substantial injustice; therefore, the tenant's challenge under section 68 fails.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2477 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Kenneth Peter Sowden; Defendant: Stephen Charles Smyth-Tyrrell; Defendant: Beaujolois Katharine Smyth-Tyrrell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69
Outcome
Tenant's applications under sections 68 and 69 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Validity of Statutory Notices, Waiver and Estoppel, Remedies Under Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Agricultural Law Serious Irregularity Validity of Statutory Notices Waiver and Estoppel Remedies Under Arbitration Act 1996

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

Parties

Kenneth Peter Sowden

Claimant

Stephen Charles Smyth-Tyrrell

Defendant

Beaujolois Katharine Smyth-Tyrrell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Case D Notice was invalid due to referencing the wrong clause
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to deal with waiver/acquiescence arguments
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator failed to give reasons for refusing modification under article 5(a) of the 1987 Order

Ratio Decidendi

The Case D Notice was valid despite referencing the wrong clause, as the breach and remedy were correctly particularised and the tenant was not misled. The arbitrator was not required to deal with waiver/acquiescence arguments as they were peripheral and unsupported by evidence. The arbitrator provided sufficient reasons for refusing modification under article 5(a). No irregularity amounted to 'serious irregularity' causing substantial injustice; therefore, the tenant's challenge under section 68 fails.

Court Disposition

Tenant's applications under sections 68 and 69 dismissed.

Orders

  • No order on landlords' application under section 57(4).
  • Landlords' application under section 70(3) dismissed.