header-logo header-logo

06 March 2015 / Nicole Finlayson , Clare Arthurs , Richard Marshall
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Features , Profession , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Arbitration challenge: Pt 3

nlj_7643_marshallfinlaysonarthurs

In their third update, Richard Marshall, Nicole Finlayson & Clare Arthurs discuss how to run a successful s 69 appeal

In this third article considering how parties can challenge awards under the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act), we look at recent developments relating to s 69. Under s 69, a party to arbitral proceedings may appeal to the court on a point of English law arising out of an award. The question is, will this third way prove any easier to navigate than its statutory brethren? (see “Arbitration challenge: Pt 1”, 164 NLJ 7623 p 25 & “Arbitration challenge: Pt 2", 164 NLJ 7628 p 35)

Appeal on a question of law

Unlike ss 67 and 68, s 69 is not a mandatory provision. It is open to parties to exclude the s 69 right to appeal by providing for this in the arbitration agreement or using a set of rules (eg the ICC rules) which expressly exclude any right of appeal. Parties considering a s 69 challenge should start by checking the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll