1998/9 - Mark Amy v Olcott Investments [1998] UR 9 (14 January 1998)

1998/9 - Mark Amy v Olcott Investments [1998] UR 9 (14 January 1998)

The arbitrator misdirected himself in law by failing to consider the allocation of costs in light of the parties' relative success on distinct issues and by treating lapsed settlement offers as irrelevant to the exercise of discretion on costs. The costs award was therefore manifestly wrong and must be remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
[1998] UR 9
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mark Amy Limited; Claimant/respondent: The Viscount of the Royal Court of Jersey; Respondent/appellant: Olcott Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 January 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Royal Court Decision Dismissing Representation to Quash Arbitrator's Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs award quashed; matter remitted to arbitrator for reconsideration of costs.
Legal Topics
Costs in Arbitration, Discretion of Arbitrator, Effect of Settlement Offers on Costs, Remittal to Arbitrator
Arbitration Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs in Arbitration Discretion of Arbitrator Effect of Settlement Offers on Costs Remittal to Arbitrator

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 1 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Amy Limited

Claimant/respondent

The Viscount of the Royal Court of Jersey

Claimant/respondent

Olcott Investments Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Royal Court Decision Dismissing Representation to Quash Arbitrator's Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator misdirected himself in law in awarding costs to Amy despite Olcott's partial success and settlement offers
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider the effect of lapsed settlement offers on the costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator misdirected himself in law by failing to consider the allocation of costs in light of the parties' relative success on distinct issues and by treating lapsed settlement offers as irrelevant to the exercise of discretion on costs. The costs award was therefore manifestly wrong and must be remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs award quashed; matter remitted to arbitrator for reconsideration of costs.

Orders

  • The arbitrator's costs award is quashed.
  • The matter is remitted to the arbitrator to reconsider costs in accordance with the Court of Appeal's judgment.