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

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

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

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
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
back-to-top-scroll