Penwith District Council v VP Developments Ltd
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the arbitrator's findings were findings of fact and inferences from fact, not errors of law. The arbitrator correctly applied the law to the facts as found, and there was no material error of law to justify granting leave to appeal under the Arbitration Act 1979.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Claimant: Penwith District Council; Defendant: VP Developments Limited (In Company Voluntary Arrangement)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 November 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Arbitration Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Arbitral Award
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Compound Interest, Damages, Appeals on Questions of Law, Hadley V Baxendale Second Limb
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Penwith District Council
Claimant
VP Developments Limited (In Company Voluntary Arrangement)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Arbitral Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arbitrator erred in law in holding that the second limb of Hadley v Baxendale applied, entitling VP Developments to compound interest as damages
- 2 Whether the arbitrator's findings were questions of law or fact and thus appealable
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the arbitrator's findings were findings of fact and inferences from fact, not errors of law. The arbitrator correctly applied the law to the facts as found, and there was no material error of law to justify granting leave to appeal under the Arbitration Act 1979.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment