Arbitration

Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 required an applicant to establish: (1) a serious irregularity; (2) an irregularity which fell within the closed list of categories in s 68(2)(a) to (i); and (3) that one or more of the irregularities identified would cause it “substantial injustice”. The threshold for a challenge under s 68 was high and the focus of the inquiry under s 68 was due process, not the correctness of the tribunal’s decision. For there to be a “serious irregularity” under s 68(1)(b) because the tribunal had exceeded its powers, it was necessary to establish that the tribunal had purported to exercise a power it did not have.

The erroneous exercise of a power which the tribunal had did not involve an excess of power. In particular, s 68 of the Act had not been engaged if the tribunal merely arrived at a wrong conclusion of law or fact. For there to be a “serious irregularity” under s