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

That view was not decisive in Ramburs Inc, because “the argument that the [respondent] buyers seek to raise … was not argued in the arbitration, and certainly not distinctly argued … . More importantly, the secondary argument is not a pure point of law but a mixed question of law and fact – hence Mr Nolan properly submitted that the sellers might properly have adduced relevant evidence” (ibid, at [11]). Applying The Mary Nour (No.2) and Cottonex Anstalt (see paragraph 22 above), Andrew Smith J concluded that it was not open to the buyers to pursue the argument in question. That is to say, the argument was dismissed as inadmissible, so that whether or not it was precluded on procedural grounds did not affect the outcome