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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll