header-logo header-logo

16 November 2012
Issue: 7538 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Arbitration

Petrochemical Industries Company (KSC) v Dow Chemical Company [2012] EWHC 2739 (Comm), [2012] All ER (D) 83 (Nov)

It was an established principle that it was not sufficient for an arbitral tribunal to deal with crucial issues in pectore, such that the parties were left to guess at whether a crucial issue had been dealt with or had been overlooked: the legislative purpose of s 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) was to ensure that all the issues, the determination of which were crucial to the tribunal’s decision, were dealt with and that could only be achieved, in practice, if it was made apparent to the parties (normally from the award or reasons) that those crucial issues had indeed been determined. It was also settled law that the assertion that the arbitrator had failed to take any or proper consideration of the evidence could, in an exceptional case, give rise to a challenge under s 68 of AA 1996, based on the general duty of an arbitrator under s 33 of AA 1996 if, for example,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll