Sowden v Smyth-Tyrrell & Anor

Sowden v Smyth-Tyrrell & Anor

The Case D Notice was valid despite the incorrect clause reference because the breach and remedy were clear and the tenant was not misled. The arbitrator did not fail to deal with any essential issue, and any alleged irregularity did not cause substantial injustice. The tenant's application under s.68 and for permission to appeal under s.69 failed to meet the statutory thresholds and were dismissed.

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 / High Court Civil Application / Judgment on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 68 and 69
Outcome
Tenant's applications under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69, Validity of Statutory Notices Under Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Waiver and Estoppel in Landlord and Tenant Law
Arbitration Land Law Agricultural Tenancies Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69 Validity of Statutory Notices Under Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Waiver and Estoppel in Landlord and Tenant Law

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 19 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 / High Court Civil Application / Judgment on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 68 and 69

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award was affected by serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Case D Notice was invalid due to incorrect reference to tenancy clause
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator failed to deal with essential issues including waiver/acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

The Case D Notice was valid despite the incorrect clause reference because the breach and remedy were clear and the tenant was not misled. The arbitrator did not fail to deal with any essential issue, and any alleged irregularity did not cause substantial injustice. The tenant's application under s.68 and for permission to appeal under s.69 failed to meet the statutory thresholds and were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Tenant's applications under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.

Orders

  • Tenant's claim under section 68 dismissed.
  • Permission to appeal under section 69 refused.