header-logo header-logo

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

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

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 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
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll