La Societe Pour La Recherche, La Production, Le Transport, La Transformation Et La Commercialisation Des Hydrocarbures S.P.A. v Statoil Natural Gas LLC [2014] EWHC 875 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 31 (Apr)
In order to succeed under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, an applicant needed to show three things. First, a serious irregularity. Second, a serious irregularity which fell within the closed list of categories in s 68(2). Third, that one or more of the irregularities identified caused or would cause the party substantial injustice. The focus of the enquiry under s 68 was due process, not the correctness of the tribunal’s decision: see per Hamblen J in Abuja International Hotels v Meridian SAS [2012] EWHC 87 (Comm) at [48] to [49]. The section was designed as a long stop available only in extreme cases where the tribunal had gone so wrong in its conduct of the arbitration that justice called out for it to be corrected.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
