header-logo header-logo

05 August 2022 / Ravi Aswani , Valya Georgieva
Issue: 7990 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , ADR
printer mail-detail

The Arbitration Act 1996: a reflection at 25 years (Pt 3)

89719
Challenging an arbitration award for serious irregularity causing substantial injustice: Ravi Aswani & Valya Georgieva examine section 68
  • Challenging an arbitration award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • The Law Commission’s indication that it will not be considering reform of section 68.
  • A comparative approach relating to indemnity costs.

Arbitration is frequently preferred over litigation as a dispute resolution method for several reasons. One such reason is the perceived finality of arbitral awards. It is common for arbitration rules and agreements to provide that awards will be final and binding on the parties, with only limited circumstances in which an arbitral award can be challenged (see for example Art 29.2 of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules 2020).

Where the seat of the arbitration is England, Wales or Northern Ireland (assumed for the purposes of this article), the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) confirms, in s 58, that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an award

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll