Independence daze
Series: Building ; 266(805) 12 October 2001, 52(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Mentions the balance arbitrators have to take between their duty not be swayed by outside pressure and their fear of being thrown out by the High Court during the course of an arbitration. Argues that it is difficult fo the arbitrator to square both of these roles. They will often adjust their decision in order to avoid criticism. Gives examples from recent cases including Balfour Beatty vs Kelston Sparkes where Balfour attacked on ground of misconduct by characterising the decision of the arbitrator as 'failing in fairness'. and "Miller Construction v James Moore". Concludes by attacking the policy of 20 years ago which disallowed except on exceptional grounds appeal on arbitrator's errors.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64707 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 115218-1001 |
Mentions the balance arbitrators have to take between their duty not be swayed by outside pressure and their fear of being thrown out by the High Court during the course of an arbitration. Argues that it is difficult fo the arbitrator to square both of these roles. They will often adjust their decision in order to avoid criticism. Gives examples from recent cases including Balfour Beatty vs Kelston Sparkes where Balfour attacked on ground of misconduct by characterising the decision of the arbitrator as 'failing in fairness'. and "Miller Construction v James Moore". Concludes by attacking the policy of 20 years ago which disallowed except on exceptional grounds appeal on arbitrator's errors.