powered by Lexis^®PSL

LEXISNEXIS_ICONS_SUPPORT

Home / Arbitration / Arbitration analyses archive / 2018

Legal News

No serious irregularity following exclusion of factual witness evidence (A v B)

No serious irregularity following exclusion of factual witness evidence (A v B)

Published on: 08 December 2018

Published by: LexisPSL

No serious irregularity following exclusion of factual witness evidence (A v B)
What are the practical implications of this judgment?
What was the background?
What did the court decide?
Case details

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: Recorder Andrew Singer QC (sitting as a Judge of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC)) dismissed a challenge to an arbitration award on grounds of serious irregularity made pursuant to section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The judge found that the tribunal’s exclusion of evidence given by one of the claimant’s factual witnesses during examination-in-chief was an exercise in case management by experienced arbitrators in accordance with their own procedural directions which did not amount to any serious irregularity. Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)

This Practice Note considers the law governing the procedural law of arbitration proceedings (the curial law or lex arbitri) and how it is determined under the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as convenient shorthand).The procedural law of the arbitral proceedingsThe procedural

Community order requirements

Community order requirements

Community order requirementsCommunity order requirements are set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), as amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012) and the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 (ORA 2014). Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 152(2)

Burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings

Burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings

There are two kinds of burden:•the legal burden, and•the evidential burdenThe legal burdenA party has the legal (sometimes called ‘the persuasive’) burden where the onus is on that party to prove a fact or issue in a case to the required standard of proof.The legal burden is generally on the

Directors’ remuneration

Directors’ remuneration

Company directors are not, by virtue only of their office as director, automatically entitled under company law to remuneration for services as a director or to reimbursement of expenses incurred in rendering such services. Power to pay directors remuneration for their services will need to be