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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll