X v Y

X v Y

The claimant's application under section 68 fails because it did not exhaust recourse under section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996, as required by section 70(2). Even if this procedural bar were overcome, none of the four alleged irregularities amount to a serious irregularity under section 68. The complaints are impermissible attacks on the tribunal's evaluation of evidence and legal reasoning, not failures of due process or procedural fairness. The tribunal dealt with all essential issues, and there was no substantial injustice.

Parties
Claimant: X; Defendant: Y
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Final Hearing of Section 68 Challenge to Arbitration Award
Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 Section 68, Interpretation of Arbitration Awards, Binding Nature of Contracts, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration
Arbitration Contract Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 Section 68 Interpretation of Arbitration Awards Binding Nature of Contracts Procedural Fairness in Arbitration

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

Parties

X

Claimant

Y

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Final Hearing of Section 68 Challenge to Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to comply with its general duty under section 33 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal failed to deal with all issues put to it under section 68(2)(d)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's application under section 68 fails because it did not exhaust recourse under section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996, as required by section 70(2). Even if this procedural bar were overcome, none of the four alleged irregularities amount to a serious irregularity under section 68. The complaints are impermissible attacks on the tribunal's evaluation of evidence and legal reasoning, not failures of due process or procedural fairness. The tribunal dealt with all essential issues, and there was no substantial injustice.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The claimant's section 68 application is dismissed.
  • The claimant is to pay the defendant's costs.