Arbitration

In order to succeed under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, it was established that an applicant needed to show three things. First, a serious irregularity. Second, a serious irregularity which fell within the closed list of categories in s 68(2) of the Act. Third, that one or more of the irregularities identified caused or would cause the party substantial injustice. The focus of the enquiry under s 68 of the Act was due process, not the correctness of the tribunal’s decision. In cases under s 68(2)(d) of the Act, there were four questions for the court: (i) whether the relevant point or argument was an “issue” within the meaning of the sub-section; (ii) if so, whether the issue was “put” to the tribunal; (iii) if so, whether the tribunal failed to deal with it; and (iv) if so, whether that failure had caused substantial injustice.