- Multiple allegations of serious irregularity dismissed (UMS Holding v Great Station Properties)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of these judgments?
- What was the background to the AA 1996, s 68 challenge?
- What was the basis of the AA 1996, s 68 challenge?
- What did the court decide?
- What did the court say on the limits of AA 1996, s 68?
- How should the court approach challenged awards?
- Manifest illogicality or irrationality—can this be a basis for a serious irregularity challenge?
- What were the court’s conclusions on the facts?
- What was the tribunal’s duty in respect of dealing with key evidence?
- Permission to appeal
- Interim payment on account of costs
- Confidentiality of the award on a AA 1996, s 68 application
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: Mr Justice Teare in the English Commercial Court dismissed a challenge, made pursuant to section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) on grounds of serious irregularity, to a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) award issued by an experienced tribunal arising out of a joint venture dispute. The applicant alleged 16 serious irregularities, none of which were upheld by the court. In a consequential judgment, the judge also dismissed an application for permission to appeal against the decision dismissing the serious irregularity claim. The main judgment is of particular interest to practitioners as its provides a comprehensive overview of the law of serious irregularity, particularly where what is called into question is the tribunal’s approach to the evidence in the arbitration in the final award. We consider both judgments in this analysis.
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