Ordering late disclosure is not serious irregularity under AA 1996, s68 (Flame v Glory Wealth)

Table of contents

• Judgment details
• Facts and judgment

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: It is not uncommon for disclosure to be ordered or completed late in the day and close to the arbitral hearing. Arguably, this can affect the opposing parties’ ability to use the disclosure to its full effect. In this case, the tribunal, having previously refused it, ordered disclosure shortly before the hearing and the claimant challenged the subsequent award on the ground that there was a serious irregularity as it had not had the opportunity to properly cross-examine on the documents. The court found that while the initial decision to refuse disclosure may have been wrong, it was not a serious irregularity. Further, the impact of the late disclosure could be addressed in other ways (additional time, adverse inferences, further evidence taken after the hearing) but that the arbitrators conduct in this case did not amount to serious irregularity.