Dadoun v Biton

Dadoun v Biton

The court found that the discussion between Dayan Lichtenstein and Rabbi Biton was limited to the timing of the award and did not concern the merits of the dispute. The non-disclosure of the discussion and related correspondence did not, in itself or in combination with other factors, give rise to apparent bias or a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

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, Impartiality of Tribunal
Arbitration Civil Procedure Apparent Bias Serious Irregularity Non Disclosure Impartiality of Tribunal

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 a discussion between the head of the arbitral tribunal and the defendant's brother constituted apparent bias and serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure of the discussion and related correspondence constituted apparent bias

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the discussion between Dayan Lichtenstein and Rabbi Biton was limited to the timing of the award and did not concern the merits of the dispute. The non-disclosure of the discussion and related correspondence did not, in itself or in combination with other factors, give rise to apparent bias or a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's challenge to the arbitral award under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • Parties are invited to agree directions regarding the stayed s.69 appeal and any consequential matters; otherwise, a further hearing may be scheduled.