Petition: Arbitration No.1 Of 2025 (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 2 (13 January 2026)

Petition: Arbitration No.1 Of 2025 (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 2 (13 January 2026)

The 'Common Law Interpretation Argument' was not put to the arbitrator as an issue for decision during the arbitration process. It was raised for the first time after the draft award was circulated, which was too late. Therefore, the arbitrator was not required to address it, and there was no serious irregularity under Rule 68(2)(c).

Citation
[2026] CSOH 2
Parties
Petitioner (tenant): Morrison; Respondent (landlord): Anderson, R
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal (serious Irregularity) / Judgment on Appeal Under Rule 68(2)(c) of Scottish Arbitration Rules
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity in Arbitration, Repairing Obligations in Leases, Mutuality of Contract, Interpretation of Lease Clauses
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Serious Irregularity in Arbitration Repairing Obligations in Leases Mutuality of Contract Interpretation of Lease Clauses

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morrison

Petitioner (tenant)

Anderson, R

Respondent (landlord)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal (serious Irregularity) / Judgment on Appeal Under Rule 68(2)(c) of Scottish Arbitration Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator failed to deal with an issue put to her, amounting to serious irregularity under Rule 68(2)(c) of the Scottish Arbitration Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The 'Common Law Interpretation Argument' was not put to the arbitrator as an issue for decision during the arbitration process. It was raised for the first time after the draft award was circulated, which was too late. Therefore, the arbitrator was not required to address it, and there was no serious irregularity under Rule 68(2)(c).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No serious irregularity found; award stands