header-logo header-logo

29 March 2012 / Clare Arthurs , Margaret Tofalides
Issue: 7507 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

The right challenge (2)

In the second of three articles Margaret Tofalides & Clare Arthurs discuss s 68 arbitration challenges

 

Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) allows an arbitration award to be challenged on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the proceedings, tribunal or award. Like s 67, s 68 is mandatory; the parties cannot choose to opt out from it. The legislature intended the courts to be able to intervene in arbitration, even though the parties have chosen to arbitrate rather than litigate. The central issue here is how the courts balance the administration of justice with the principle of party autonomy: how often do s 68 challenges succeed?

Challenging an award

Section 68 challenges are subject to the same restrictions as s 67 challenges: any application must be made (on notice) within 28 days of the date of the award or notification of any arbitral appeal or review’s outcome (s 70(3)). Equally, the party must first exhaust any process of appeal or review under the arbitration agreement or rules, and any recourse available under s 57
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