header-logo header-logo

25 September 2026 / Masood Ahmed , Lal Akhter
Issue: 8178 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail

Shell-shocked: a successful s 68 challenge

259873
© Getty images

Masood Ahmed & Dr Lal Akhter unscramble a case of suppliers, hens & the Lion Code

  • Covers Stonegate Farmers v Chucks Farms, and its lessons for arbitration specialists.
  • Notes success in s 68 Arbitration Act challenges are rare, and explains why this case succeeds.

It is well established that, although arbitrators are not bound by the parties’ legal submissions, they must not decide a dispute on a point that has not been raised without first giving the parties an opportunity to comment. Where they fail to do so, the arbitral award may be challenged on the grounds of serious irregularity under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996).

In Stonegate Farmers Ltd v Chucks Farm Ltd [2026] EWHC 742 (Comm), the Circuit Commercial Court upheld a s 68 challenge after the arbitrator decided the dispute on the basis of an implied contractual term that neither party had put forward.

Farm dispute

Stonegate Farmers and Chucks Farm entered into an agreement

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll