- Serious irregularity challenge to LCIA award dismissed by Commercial Court (Orascom TMT Investments v VEON)
- What are the practical implications of this judgment?
- What was the background to the decision?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: Matthew Bradley of 4 New Square analyses the decision of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in the Commercial Court to dismiss a serious irregularity challenge to a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) tribunal’s award for failure to deal with all the issues that were put to it, pursuant to section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The court’s essential finding was that there was no relevant issue capable in principle of engaging AA 1996, s 68(2)(d), such that the challenge failed for that reason alone. In the course of giving judgment, the court made some trenchant observations as to the proper pleading of arbitration Claim Forms, and as to the proper distinction to be drawn between pleadings and witness statements in challenges under AA 1996, s 68 (and s 67).
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