header-logo header-logo

11 June 2021 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7936 / Categories: Features , Arbitration , Procedure & practice , ADR
printer mail-detail

Challenging arbitral awards: A welcome reminder

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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll