LM-2024-000175 - [2025] EWHC 2497 (Comm)

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

Conclusions

Conclusion

62.

I have held that it was open to the LLP to ask the Arbitrator to clarify what he meant. The LLP clearly could have done this, as it managed to assemble its claim to this Court in the time period within which it could have applied to the Arbitrator under Section 57(3)(a). Accordingly, in my judgment, the LLP had available recourse under Section 57 which had not been exhausted; and thus, pursuant to Section 70(2), the LLP could not bring the current application at all.

63.

In case I am wrong about the threshold issue, I also address the Section 68 application.

64.

I have rejected the LLP’s interpretation of what the Arbitrator was saying in the Award, from which it follows that I also dismiss the LLP’s application under Section 68(2)(a). I have also rejected the contention that the Arbitrator failed to address all the issues put before him, and accordingly I dismiss the application under Section 68(2)(d).

65.

As the authorities consistently have made clear, Section 68 of the Act exists to provide a protection of last resort for a party in the extreme event an arbitral tribunal has gone so wrong that justice cries out for the Court to intervene. In my judgment, the LLP’s application here was abusive of the right to bring an application of last resort:

The LLP could have sought clarification of the Award from the Arbitrator before launching into the expense of this challenge;

ii)

The application involved making serious allegations against the Arbitrator of effectively being so incompetent that he had perpetrated a serious injustice. As I trust is clear from this judgment, although it might be said that the Arbitrator could have expressed himself more clearly (and I make even that mild critique with all due respect for him), the contention that he was in dereliction of his duty is patently wrong and in my view was unjustified having regard to the well-known very high threshold for invoking Section 68.

66.

I invite the parties to agree a form of order and if possible to agree an appropriate costs order. If a further hearing is necessary, one can be organised for the convenience of the parties after handing down of this judgment.