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

The Arbitrator’s approach was “manifestly unfair to the Claimant and a serious abdication of [his] responsibilities”. In support of that proposition, Mr Leiper referred me to various authorities concerning the circumstances in which a court would be entitled to dispatch a disputed issue of fact by resort to the burden of proof.

The Arbitrator’s finding of fact at paragraph 293 of the Award that the two-year period was unreasonable was manifestly unfair, because the basis upon which the Arbitrator approach the business of weighing the evidence was manifestly unfair.

The irregularity has caused substantial injustice, in that but for the alleged irregularity, the outcome of the arbitration might well have been different.

To the extent the Arbitrator found that the evidence led by the LLP did not satisfy him that the duration of the restrictions in the Covenants was reasonable, there was nothing objectionable in such an approach. The Arbitrator clearly had formed a view on whether the time period was reasonable and in forming that view he was not persuaded by the LLP’s evidence.

The Arbitrator clearly did engage with all the submissions made by the parties and the evidence led by them, as demonstrated by the structure of the Award, which extensively recited the evidence and submissions.

The Arbitrator clearly had dealt with the issues which were put before him and there was no issue left unaddressed.