The attempt to claim that an arbitration tribunal’s refusal to deal with issues that had not been pleaded in the reference amounted to serious irregularity failed as did complaints concerning the reasoning adopted.
This case also demonstrates that, when challenging an arbitration for serious irregularity under s68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 Act, it is essential that the Claimant complies strictly with CPR 62.4 by:
(i) identifying in the Claim Form the part or parts of the award challenged; and
(ii) pleading in the Claim Form the nature of the substantial injustice which has allegedly been caused by the alleged serious irregularity.
In relation to applications for leave to appeal on a point of law under s69 of the Act the Court underlined the need to comply fully with s69(4) that requires that:
(i) the Claimant “shall identify the question of law to be determined
(ii) the grounds on which it is alleged that leave to appeal should be granted.
The Claimants failure to comply with these requirements and with the applicable provision of the Commercial Court Guide where taken into account in Andrew Smith J’s judgment in which he dismissed both the s68 challenge and the appeal and awarded indemnity costs against the Claimant, Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd. He also refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Further details are available from Daniel Wilson.