Schwebel v Wolf Schwebel

Schwebel v Wolf Schwebel

No question of English law arose from the award, as the arbitration was conducted under Jewish law per the parties' agreement; thus, no permission to appeal under s.69 could be granted. No serious irregularity under s.68 was established, as the tribunal considered the essential issues, followed proper procedure, and there was no evidence of fraud or public policy breach. Dissatisfaction with factual findings does not amount to a ground for intervention under s.68.

Parties
Claimant: Aaron Yitzchok Schwebel; Defendant: Wolf Schwebel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (challenge to Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Challenge for Serious Irregularity
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Challenge to Arbitral Award, Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Permission to Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69, Trusts Arising From Property Transfers, Inheritance and Beneficial Ownership
Arbitration Trusts and Estates Property Law Challenge to Arbitral Award Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Permission to Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69 Trusts Arising From Property Transfers Inheritance and Beneficial Ownership

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aaron Yitzchok Schwebel

Claimant

Wolf Schwebel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (challenge to Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Challenge for Serious Irregularity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal the Beth Din arbitral award should be granted under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 justifying setting aside the award
  3. 3 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence or acted contrary to public policy

Ratio Decidendi

No question of English law arose from the award, as the arbitration was conducted under Jewish law per the parties' agreement; thus, no permission to appeal under s.69 could be granted. No serious irregularity under s.68 was established, as the tribunal considered the essential issues, followed proper procedure, and there was no evidence of fraud or public policy breach. Dissatisfaction with factual findings does not amount to a ground for intervention under s.68.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • AY's claim for permission to appeal under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • AY's application to set aside the award for serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.