header-logo header-logo

Arbitration

24 January 2014
Issue: 7591 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Patley Wood Farm LLP v Brake and another [2013] EWHC 4035 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 48 (Jan)

The exercise of a discretion under s 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 did not require a court to revisit the award of an arbitrator that was sought to be enforced. That would create great difficulty, as the hearing under s 42 of the Act would be a lengthy and detailed affair. Further, the order under appeal would be itself a factor to be born in mind, but would not be conclusive. 

 

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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll