header-logo header-logo

The right challenge (2)

29 March 2012 / Clare Arthurs , Margaret Tofalides
Issue: 7507 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

In the second of three articles Margaret Tofalides & Clare Arthurs discuss s 68 arbitration challenges

 

Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) allows an arbitration award to be challenged on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the proceedings, tribunal or award. Like s 67, s 68 is mandatory; the parties cannot choose to opt out from it. The legislature intended the courts to be able to intervene in arbitration, even though the parties have chosen to arbitrate rather than litigate. The central issue here is how the courts balance the administration of justice with the principle of party autonomy: how often do s 68 challenges succeed?

Challenging an award

Section 68 challenges are subject to the same restrictions as s 67 challenges: any application must be made (on notice) within 28 days of the date of the award or notification of any arbitral appeal or review’s outcome (s 70(3)). Equally, the party must first exhaust any process of appeal or review under the arbitration agreement or rules,
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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

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

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
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
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll