X v Y [2018] EWHC 741 (Comm) (12 February 2018)

X v Y [2018] EWHC 741 (Comm) (12 February 2018)

Claimant failed to exhaust recourse under section 57 as required by section 70(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996; none of the alleged irregularities constituted serious irregularity under section 68; claimant's complaints were impermissible attacks on the Tribunal's evaluation of evidence and legal reasoning; section 68 challenge dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 741 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: X; Defendant: Y
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68 / Final Hearing, Judgment on Challenge to Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Section 68 Challenge, Enforceability of Contract, Procedural Fairness, LCIA Rules
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Section 68 Challenge Enforceability of Contract Procedural Fairness LCIA Rules

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

Parties

X

Claimant

Y

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68 / Final Hearing, Judgment on Challenge to Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to comply with section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to deal with all issues put to it
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was bound by the services contract

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to exhaust recourse under section 57 as required by section 70(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996; none of the alleged irregularities constituted serious irregularity under section 68; claimant's complaints were impermissible attacks on the Tribunal's evaluation of evidence and legal reasoning; section 68 challenge dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Section 68 challenge dismissed with costs