header-logo header-logo

Arbitration challenge: Pt 1

26 September 2014 / Nicole Finlayson , Richard Marshall
Issue: 7623 / Categories: Features , Profession , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

In the first of a series of articles, Richard Marshall & Nicole Finlayson examine the various routes open to parties to challenge an award

Why choose arbitration over litigation or other forms of ADR? For many parties it is the confidentiality, commerciality and finality of arbitration that appeal. However, the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) does contain various means by which a dissatisfied party can challenge an award. While it is fair to say that the courts will be slow to interfere with an arbitral award, case law suggests that this does not stop parties from applying and, in some cases, succeeding.

In this series of articles we will examine the various routes open to parties to challenge an award, and consider the practical difficulties that such challenges may face in the light of recent case law. This first article will focus on s 67, which allows an arbitration award to be challenged in the courts on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction.

Challenging jurisdiction

Section 67

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll