MF King (Holdings) plc v Thomas McKenna Ltd
MF King (Holdings) plc v Thomas McKenna Ltd
- 1991
- Construction Industry Law Letter 1991 CILL 631-634(4) .
CA 20 December 1990. During an arbitration the employers (X) made a sealed offer . During the hearing X`s counsel made a tactical decision not to tell the arbiter that there was a sealed offer. They also did not believe that costs would be dealt with as the arbitrator had used the words "hold costs over". Counsel mistakenly believed this was enough to procure a further hearing. The arbitrator awarded the contractors (Y) less than the amount of the sealed offer but in ignorance of it made a final award awarding Y their costs. X applied to the commercial court for an order remitting the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration under Arbitration Act 1950 s22 . This was done and Y appealed. It was argued that s22 only applied in four specific circumstances where the award was bad on its face, where there had been misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, where there was an admitted mistake and the arbitrator asked for it to be remitted and where new evidence had been found. However it
CASE LAW
CA 20 December 1990. During an arbitration the employers (X) made a sealed offer . During the hearing X`s counsel made a tactical decision not to tell the arbiter that there was a sealed offer. They also did not believe that costs would be dealt with as the arbitrator had used the words "hold costs over". Counsel mistakenly believed this was enough to procure a further hearing. The arbitrator awarded the contractors (Y) less than the amount of the sealed offer but in ignorance of it made a final award awarding Y their costs. X applied to the commercial court for an order remitting the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration under Arbitration Act 1950 s22 . This was done and Y appealed. It was argued that s22 only applied in four specific circumstances where the award was bad on its face, where there had been misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, where there was an admitted mistake and the arbitrator asked for it to be remitted and where new evidence had been found. However it
CASE LAW