header-logo header-logo

Arbitration

05 March 2009
Issue: 7359 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

F Ltd v M Ltd [2009] EWHC 275 (TCC), [2009] All ER (D) 260 (Feb)

The existence of a dissenting opinion on a point of law or fact, arising in connection with an issue that has been pleaded or dealt with by the parties in argument, will be irrelevant to any application under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The decision of the Arbitral Tribunal on such a point, albeit by a majority rather than unanimously, could not be challenged for serious irregularity in such circumstances.

However, a comment or observation in a dissenting opinion, to the effect that an important point has been decided by the majority without reference to the parties, will be a factor to which the court will attach weight in dealing with an application under s 68 (and may have considerable weight, although it is unlikely that it could, on its own, prove determinative).

Where an argument raised by the dissenting arbitrator has plainly been considered and rejected by the majority, even if it is an argument that the parties did not themselves raise, it may be difficult to say that there was a substantial injustice, since (regardless of how it arose) the argument will have been considered and rejected by the majority.

Issue: 7359 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll