CL-2024-000457, 000458, 000459 - [2025] EWHC 1803 (Comm)

In his reasoning, Moore-Bick J observed (ibid, at [22]) that s.69(7) of the 1996 Act “must be read in the context of s.69 as a whole. The intention of the legislation is that the powers of the court under this subsection should be exercised in a manner that will best give effect to its conclusions on the issues of law that arise on the appeal, including any issues of law raised by the defendant under para 6.12(3) [sic., para 12.3(3)] of the practice direction seeking to uphold the award. It does not, in my view, give the court a wider discretion or allow it to take into account matters outside the scope of the appeal itself …”. That is the dictum relied on by Eder J in MRI Trading. However, CPR PD62 para 12.3(3) as it was, to which Moore-Bick J referred, was not the provision applicable now or in MRI Trading. When Icon Navigation was decided, CPR PD62 para 12.3 required written evidence, to be filed by the respondent to an application for leave to appeal under s.69 not later than two clear days prior to the hearing of that application, to:

“(1)

state the grounds on which the respondent opposes the grant of permission;

(2)

set out any evidence relied on by [the respondent] relating to the matters mentioned in section 69(3) of the 1996 Act; and

(3)

specify whether the respondent wishes to contend that the award should be upheld for reasons not expressed (or not fully expressed) in the award and, if so, state those reasons.”