- Award remitted to arbitrator after AA 1996, s 69 appeal (Maurice J Bushell & Co v Born)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this decision?
- What was the background to the appeal?
- What order did the claimant firm seek?
- What did the judge decide?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: M H Rosen QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge in the Chancery Division (in a judgment dated 22 February 2017 but made available in September 2017), has declined a successful appellant’s application under section 69(7) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) that the court should vary or set aside an award so that the costs apportionment should be determined differently. In ordering instead that the award be remitted to the arbitrator, the judge noted that the grounds of appeal had been based on an error of law and not on misconduct or irregularity. Where a non-lawyer arbitrator made a mistake of law, that was not sufficient reason for a loss of confidence and did not make remission inappropriate.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial