header-logo header-logo

Arbitration challenge: Pt 2

30 October 2014 / Nicole Finlayson , Richard Marshall
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Features , Profession , ADR
printer mail-detail
marshallnicole

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

In this second article considering how to challenge awards under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), we look at challenges to an award on the ground of serious irregularity (s 68). Historically, successful challenges under s 68 have been rare. To quote the Report of the Departmental Advisory Committee which led to AA 1996, s 68 “is really designed as a long-stop, only available in extreme cases where the tribunal has gone so wrong in its conduct of the arbitration that justice calls out for it to be corrected”.

Recent case law demonstrates that this principle still very much holds true in practice.

Serious irregularity affecting tribunal, proceedings or award

Section 68 allows a party to arbitral proceedings to apply to court challenging an award on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, proceedings or award. “Serious irregularity” means an irregularity of one or more

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