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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

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