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

This is an application to set aside a final arbitration award made on 31 May 2024 (“the Award”)on the ground of alleged serious irregularity. In short, the Claimant characterises the arbitrator’s approach to certain issues as amounting to a dereliction of his duty: he has, it is said, declined to adjudicate upon the key conflict in the evidence before him. The Claimant contends that this alleged choice on the part of the arbitrator falls within Section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”), in that it evidences a failure by him to comply with his general duty under Section 33 of the Act; and further or alternatively falls within Section 68(2)(d) of the Act, in that it evidences a failure by the arbitrator to deal with all the issues put to him. The Claimant contends that the only remedy possible in the circumstances is to set aside the award and remit the dispute to a differently constituted tribunal.

Given that the Claimant challenges the award pursuant to the provisions of Section 68 of the Act reviewed above, it brought the current claim as of right under Section 68(1). Were this to be an appeal on a question of law arising out of an award, the Claimant could only proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 69, by seeking permission to appeal. I mention the well-known distinction between claims under Section 68 and appeals under Section 69 because the nature of the argument made by the Claimant here is characterised by the Defendant as a complaint that the arbitrator’s alleged choice amounted to an error of law on his part. I consider this further below.

The Claimant was represented by Mr Richard Leiper KC and Ms Katherine Eddy; the Defendant by Mr Stuart Benzie and Mr Matthew Tonnard. As was appropriate on a day-long hearing, I was addressed orally only by Mr Leiper and Mr Benzie, but I have no doubt that a great deal of teamwork went into their submissions, which were very helpful to me. I am very grateful to all counsel.