header-logo header-logo

Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts

02 October 2008
Issue: 7339 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Janna Purdie considers the fairness of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts

Arbitration agreements and the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The Technology and Construction Court refused to enforce an arbitration award under s 66(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) on the grounds that:
      ●     the arbitrator had not been validly appointed in accordance with AA 1996.
      ●     the arbitration clause did not comply with SI 1999/2083

Facts of the case

The claimant had carried out building work for the defendant and a dispute arose. The claimant's standard terms and conditions provided for any dispute to be referred to arbitration.

The defendant having taken advice, maintained that the standard terms and conditions were contrary to SI 1999/2083 and therefore the arbitration clause did not apply. Therefore, any dispute between the two parties should be dealt with in the courts. The defendant maintained this stance by refusing to participate in the appointment of an arbitrator, disputing the arbitrator's jurisdiction and refusing to take part in the arbitration.

The arbitrator considered that he had jurisdiction

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll