header-logo header-logo

06 March 2015 / Nicole Finlayson , Clare Arthurs , Richard Marshall
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Features , Profession , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Arbitration challenge: Pt 3

nlj_7643_marshallfinlaysonarthurs

In their third update, Richard Marshall, Nicole Finlayson & Clare Arthurs discuss how to run a successful s 69 appeal

In this third article considering how parties can challenge awards under the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act), we look at recent developments relating to s 69. Under s 69, a party to arbitral proceedings may appeal to the court on a point of English law arising out of an award. The question is, will this third way prove any easier to navigate than its statutory brethren? (see “Arbitration challenge: Pt 1”, 164 NLJ 7623 p 25 & “Arbitration challenge: Pt 2", 164 NLJ 7628 p 35)

Appeal on a question of law

Unlike ss 67 and 68, s 69 is not a mandatory provision. It is open to parties to exclude the s 69 right to appeal by providing for this in the arbitration agreement or using a set of rules (eg the ICC rules) which expressly exclude any right of appeal. Parties

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll