Fulham Broadway Trustees v Telefonica UK [2014] EWHC 1048 (Ch) (20 February 2014)

Fulham Broadway Trustees v Telefonica UK [2014] EWHC 1048 (Ch) (20 February 2014)

The application was dismissed because the arbitrator gave the landlord a reasonable opportunity to address the evidential value of the Unit 8 letting, dealt with all relevant issues, and there was no serious irregularity or substantial injustice under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1048 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Fulham Broadway Trustees; Defendant: Telefonica UK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Act 1996 Section 68 Application / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, General Duty of Tribunal (s.33), Rent Review Arbitration, Open Market Rent, Weight of Comparable Evidence
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Commercial Property Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 General Duty of Tribunal (s.33) Rent Review Arbitration Open Market Rent Weight of Comparable Evidence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fulham Broadway Trustees

Claimant

Telefonica UK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Act 1996 Section 68 Application / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator failed to comply with section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by not giving the landlord a reasonable opportunity to address the weight to be given to a comparable letting (Unit 8)
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to deal with all issues put to him, specifically the effect of the Statement of Agreed Facts on the evidential value of the Unit 8 letting

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the arbitrator gave the landlord a reasonable opportunity to address the evidential value of the Unit 8 letting, dealt with all relevant issues, and there was no serious irregularity or substantial injustice under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed