header-logo header-logo

Challenging arbitral awards: A welcome reminder

11 June 2021 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7936 / Categories: Features , Arbitration , Procedure & practice , ADR
printer mail-detail
Masood Ahmed examines the scenario of challenging arbitral awards for inadequate reasons
  • Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another v Broadsheet LLC: serious irregularity—challenging an arbitral award; the parties’ submission; the judgment; comment.

In Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another v Broadsheet LLC [2019] EWHC 1832 (Comm), the claimants (the respondents in the arbitration) challenged an arbitral award for serious irregularity under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Relying on ss 68(2)(c) and 68(2)(h), the claimants alleged that a serious irregularity had occurred because the arbitral tribunal had failed to provide adequate reasons in the award. The essential issue for Mrs Justice Moulder was whether ‘inadequate reasons’ could be founded on a challenge under s 68(2)(c) and/or (h).

Serious irregularity

A party may, pursuant to s 68, challenge an arbitral award for serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award which the court may consider has caused or will cause ‘substantial injustice’ to the applicant. It should be noted that the requirement of substantial injustice

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

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Employment law team strengthened with partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

Corporate solicitor joins as partner in Birmingham

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll