header-logo header-logo

The right challenge (3)

17 August 2012 / Clare Arthurs , Margaret Tofalides
Issue: 7527 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

In the final of three articles Margaret Tofalides & Clare Arthurs discuss s 69 arbitration challenges

The third means of challenging an arbitration award lies under s 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), which provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, one party may appeal to the court “on a question of law arising out of an award made in the proceedings”.

Opting out

Section 69 differs from ss 67 and 68 in that it is not mandatory. This is an issue which needs to be considered right at the outset, when agreeing to submit disputes to arbitration. Some of the most commonly-used arbitration rules expressly exclude the right to challenge on points of law. You should therefore check the relevant rules before agreeing to use them.

Equally, care must be taken with the arbitration agreement. Agreeing to dispense with reasons for the tribunal’s award will constitute a s 69 exclusion agreement (s 69(1)). An exclusion agreement can also be incorporated by reference rather than by being

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