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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll