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

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
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? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll