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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll