header-logo header-logo

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

Unfair arbitration

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll