Warborough Investments Ltd. v S.Robinson & Sons (Holdings) Ltd.

Warborough Investments Ltd. v S.Robinson & Sons (Holdings) Ltd.

The arbitrator did not breach his statutory duty of fairness under section 33 by relying on the 1989 settlements and applying a retail uplift, as these matters were raised in the parties' submissions and the appellant had the opportunity to address them. Even if there was an irregularity, it did not cause...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Warborough Investments Ltd; Respondent: S. Robinson & Sons (Holdings) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Rent Review Arbitration, Procedural Fairness, Ground Rent Valuation
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Property Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Rent Review Arbitration Procedural Fairness Ground Rent Valuation

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Warborough Investments Ltd

Appellant

S. Robinson & Sons (Holdings) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator breached his duty of fairness under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by adopting a valuation approach not advocated by either party without giving the parties an opportunity to comment
  2. 2 Whether such breach, if any, caused substantial injustice to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator did not breach his statutory duty of fairness under section 33 by relying on the 1989 settlements and applying a retail uplift, as these matters were raised in the parties' submissions and the appellant had the opportunity to address them. Even if there was an irregularity, it did not cause substantial injustice as required by section 68. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed