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
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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll