Final and binding? challenges under the Arbitration Act 1996, section 69
Language: English Series: Arbitration ; 72(2) May 2006, 119-123(5)Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Summary: The Arbitration Act 1996 s68 provides that an arbitrator's decision can be challenged on the basis of serious irregularity. In "Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA and others" ([2005] UKHL 43, L130513) it was held that such a remedy had to be regarded as exceptional; the threshold that the applicant has to meet is a high one, as a court must approach an application under s68 from the standpoint that it should interfere with the arbitration as little as possible. The decision is consistent with the approach adopted by other courts who had to decide s68 applications in 2005.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L133565 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 133565-1001 |
The Arbitration Act 1996 s68 provides that an arbitrator's decision can be challenged on the basis of serious irregularity. In "Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA and others" ([2005] UKHL 43, L130513) it was held that such a remedy had to be regarded as exceptional; the threshold that the applicant has to meet is a high one, as a court must approach an application under s68 from the standpoint that it should interfere with the arbitration as little as possible. The decision is consistent with the approach adopted by other courts who had to decide s68 applications in 2005.