BV Scheepswerf Damen Gorinchem v The Marine Institute

BV Scheepswerf Damen Gorinchem v The Marine Institute

The arbitrator's delay in publishing the award, while regrettable, did not amount to serious irregularity under section 68 because Damen failed to show that the delay or any alleged failure to deal with issues caused or would cause substantial injustice. The arbitrator addressed all essential issues, and criticisms of the quality or brevity of reasoning, or findings of fact, are not grounds for intervention under section 68.

Parties
Claimant: B. V. Scheepswerf Damen Gorinchem; Defendant: The Marine Institute
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Delay in Arbitral Award, Failure to Deal With Issues, Remedies for Procedural Irregularity
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Delay in Arbitral Award Failure to Deal With Issues Remedies for Procedural Irregularity

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. V. Scheepswerf Damen Gorinchem

Claimant

The Marine Institute

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inordinate delay in publishing an arbitral award constitutes serious irregularity under section 68 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to deal with all issues put to him
  3. 3 Whether the delay or alleged failures caused substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's delay in publishing the award, while regrettable, did not amount to serious irregularity under section 68 because Damen failed to show that the delay or any alleged failure to deal with issues caused or would cause substantial injustice. The arbitrator addressed all essential issues, and criticisms of the quality or brevity of reasoning, or findings of fact, are not grounds for intervention under section 68.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Section 68 application to set aside the arbitral award is dismissed.