header-logo header-logo

16 October 2008
Issue: 7341 / Categories: Case law , Procedure & practice , Law digest , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Arbitration

O’Donoghue v Enterprise Inns plc [2008] EWHC 2273 (Ch), [2008] All ER (D) 43 (Oct)

For an application under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to succeed, there must be a serious irregularity. The serious irregularity must fall within one of the classes set out in s 68(2).

Furthermore, it has to be such that it will cause (or has caused) substantial injustice to the applicant. Substantial injustice can only be demonstrated where what has happened simply cannot be defined as an acceptable consequence of the choice that the parties made to arbitrate.

An aggrieved party in an arbitration must raise any objections to the arbitration or the award forthwith; in this context “forthwith” means as soon as reasonably possible (and so involves raising an objection immediately following a procedural ruling).
 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll