header-logo header-logo

Unfair arbitration

02 October 2008
Issue: 7339 / Categories: Legal News , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Arbitration

Businesses that contract with consumers must ensure that arbitration clauses are fully explained at the time the contract is entered into, warn lawyers.

In Mylcrist Builders Limited v Mrs G Buck a judge refused to enforce an arbitration award against the defendant (a consumer) who had engaged the firm on its standard terms and conditions which included an arbitration clause.

The court found the arbitrator had not been properly appointed however, and that the related clauses were not binding. The judge held that the inclusion of the clause had caused a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the defendant.

Steven Friel, partner at Davies Arnold Cooper LLP, says: “English courts have gone to great lengths recently to uphold arbitration clauses, on the basis that arbitration should be considered a stand alone dispute resolution process and relatively free from interference from the courts”.

However, the judgment means that arbitration clauses could be considered unfair in consumer contracts, says Friel.

“In this case the court decided that consumer protection

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll