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

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