header-logo header-logo

Arbitration

25 March 2010
Issue: 7410 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Buyuk Camlica Shipping Trading and Industry Co Inc v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd [2010] EWHC 442 (Comm), [2010] All ER (D) 176 (Mar)

There was no duty on a judge, in giving reasons, to deal with every argument presented by counsel in support of his case. The same applied to arbitral tribunals. A failure to deal with an argument was not the necessary equivalent of a failure to deal with an issue under the Arbitration Act 1996, s 68. That section was designed to cover only those essential issues which had been put to the tribunal and which were necessary to be dealt with for a fair decision on the claims.

It did not mean that the tribunal had to decide all issues raised by the parties. The legislative purpose of s 68(2)(b) was to ensure that all crucial issues were dealt with. It might be that certain issues would fall away in the course of a tribunal’s deliberations. The question whether or not the tribunal had failed to deal with an essential issue could not be decided on

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll