Khawar Qureshi QC reviews key High Court decisions
- Mostly hopeless s 68 challenges dominate.
- Arbitrator bias context defined further.
- Emergency interim measures provided for by arbitral rules likely to preclude court relief.
In this past year, there were around 50 reported Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) related court decisions. The most common provision invoked was in respect of failed challenges to arbitral awards pursuant to s 68 of AA 1996 on grounds of “serious irregularity”. In addition, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal both considered (and dismissed) challenges pursuant to the less frequently invoked s 69 of AA 1996 (appeal on a point of law) in the shipping cases of Spar Shipping v Grand China Logistics [2016] EWCA Civ 982, [2016] All ER (D) 67 (Oct) and NYK Bulkship v Cargill [2016] UKSC 20, [2016] 4 All ER 298.
In the case of DB v DLJ [2016] EWHC 324 (Fam), [2016] 4 All ER 298 Mostyn J considered the additional limitations applicable to enforcement of an arbitral
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=3d1684d4_1)
