Dadoun v Biton [2019] EWHC 3441 (Ch) (13 December 2019)

Dadoun v Biton [2019] EWHC 3441 (Ch) (13 December 2019)

The discussion between Dayan Lichtenstein and Rabbi Biton was limited to the timing of the Award and did not concern the merits. Non-disclosure of this insignificant discussion and related correspondence did not give rise to a real possibility of bias. Therefore, there was no serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3441 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Rabbi Moshe Avram Dadoun; Defendant: Yitzchok Biton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Serious Irregularity, Non Disclosure, Arbitral Award Challenge
Arbitration Commercial Law Apparent Bias Serious Irregularity Non Disclosure Arbitral Award Challenge

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabbi Moshe Avram Dadoun

Claimant

Yitzchok Biton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-disclosure of a discussion between arbitrator and party's relative constituted apparent bias and serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the content of the discussion or non-disclosure thereof undermined the impartiality of the tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The discussion between Dayan Lichtenstein and Rabbi Biton was limited to the timing of the Award and did not concern the merits. Non-disclosure of this insignificant discussion and related correspondence did not give rise to a real possibility of bias. Therefore, there was no serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's challenge to the Award under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • Parties invited to agree directions regarding the stayed s.69 appeal; if not, a further hearing may be held.