header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 May 2014
Issue: 7482 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Arbitration—Award—Setting aside award

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Kaneria v The England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd [2014] EWHC 1348 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 45 (May)

Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Hamblen J, 6 May 2014

The England and Wales Cricket Board did not exceed its powers in imposing a life ban on a cricketer found guilty of two charges of spot-fixing. 

Timothy Moloney QC & Jude Bunting (instructed by Time Solicitors) for K. Ian Mill QC (instructed by Onside Law) for the England and Wales Cricket Board.

The claimant was a Pakistani national and a professional international cricketer. He played for Essex Cricket Club between 2004 and 2010 as an overseas player. The defendant was the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), which had responsibility for all aspects of the administration of the game of cricket in England and Wales. In September 2009, W, an English cricketer playing for Essex, admitted that he had deliberately bowled badly in a match in return for financial reward. The ECB brought disciplinary proceedings against the claimant alleging

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll