Petrochemical Industries Company (KSC) v The Dow Chemical Company

Petrochemical Industries Company (KSC) v The Dow Chemical Company

The tribunal did address the assumption of responsibility issue, albeit succinctly, within its findings on remoteness and foreseeability. The tribunal's reasoning was sufficient to satisfy section 68(2)(d) and there was no serious irregularity. There was no breach of the tribunal's general duty under section 33, as there was no evidence the tribunal overlooked material evidence or acted unfairly. No substantial injustice was caused.

Parties
Claimant: Petrochemical Industries Company (K.S.C.); Defendant: The Dow Chemical Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Remoteness of Damages, Assumption of Responsibility, Damages for Breach of Contract
Arbitration Contract Law Serious Irregularity Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Remoteness of Damages Assumption of Responsibility Damages for Breach of Contract

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petrochemical Industries Company (K.S.C.)

Claimant

The Dow Chemical Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to deal with the 'assumption of responsibility' issue as required under section 68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal breached its general duty under section 33 Arbitration Act 1996 by overlooking material evidence
  3. 3 Whether any such failure caused substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did address the assumption of responsibility issue, albeit succinctly, within its findings on remoteness and foreseeability. The tribunal's reasoning was sufficient to satisfy section 68(2)(d) and there was no serious irregularity. There was no breach of the tribunal's general duty under section 33, as there was no evidence the tribunal overlooked material evidence or acted unfairly. No substantial injustice was caused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • PIC’s application under section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.