PETITION IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NUMBER 2 OF 2019 [2020] CSOH 51 (28 May 2020)

PETITION IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NUMBER 2 OF 2019 [2020] CSOH 51 (28 May 2020)

The arbitrator's part award, when read as a whole, is clear in its meaning: the market consideration of the appropriate period for fitting-out, taking into account the characteristics of the premises, is the relevant approach. There is no ambiguity requiring clarification or correction. The petitioner's application for correction was made after an unreasonable and substantial delay, with no sufficient justification, and granting an extension would be contrary to the interests of justice and the principle of avoiding unnecessary delay in arbitration.

Citation
[2020] CSOH 51
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner: Bartos; Respondent: Respondent: Thomson QC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Application Under Rule 58 of the Scottish Arbitration Rules
Outcome
Petitioner's application refused
Legal Topics
Clarification of Arbitral Award, Rent Review, Interpretation of Lease Provisions, Delay in Application for Correction, Market Rent Determination
Arbitration Commercial Property Law Clarification of Arbitral Award Rent Review Interpretation of Lease Provisions Delay in Application for Correction Market Rent Determination

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner: Bartos

Petitioner

Respondent: Thomson QC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Application Under Rule 58 of the Scottish Arbitration Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the part award of the arbitrator is ambiguous or unclear and requires clarification or correction under rule 58 of the Scottish Arbitration Rules
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow an application for correction outwith the 28-day period specified in rule 58

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's part award, when read as a whole, is clear in its meaning: the market consideration of the appropriate period for fitting-out, taking into account the characteristics of the premises, is the relevant approach. There is no ambiguity requiring clarification or correction. The petitioner's application for correction was made after an unreasonable and substantial delay, with no sufficient justification, and granting an extension would be contrary to the interests of justice and the principle of avoiding unnecessary delay in arbitration.

Court Disposition

Petitioner's application refused

Orders

  • Application for specification of a date to apply to the arbitrator for clarification or correction of the part award is refused.