header-logo header-logo

11 June 2021 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7936 / Categories: Features , Arbitration , Procedure & practice , ADR
printer mail-detail

Challenging arbitral awards: A welcome reminder

Masood Ahmed examines the scenario of challenging arbitral awards for inadequate reasons
  • Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another v Broadsheet LLC: serious irregularity—challenging an arbitral award; the parties’ submission; the judgment; comment.

In Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another v Broadsheet LLC [2019] EWHC 1832 (Comm), the claimants (the respondents in the arbitration) challenged an arbitral award for serious irregularity under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Relying on ss 68(2)(c) and 68(2)(h), the claimants alleged that a serious irregularity had occurred because the arbitral tribunal had failed to provide adequate reasons in the award. The essential issue for Mrs Justice Moulder was whether ‘inadequate reasons’ could be founded on a challenge under s 68(2)(c) and/or (h).

Serious irregularity

A party may, pursuant to s 68, challenge an arbitral award for serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award which the court may consider has caused or will cause ‘substantial injustice’ to the applicant. It should be noted that the requirement of substantial injustice is additional to that of a serious irregularity and an

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll