[2005] EWHC 2715 (TCC) 30 November 2005. B purchased 1 500 housing units from W. The contract provided that in the event of a breach of warranty, W would pay B an amount equal to any loss suffered. B claimed that W was in breach of warranty because it failed to disclose documents showing that the structural integrity of the units had been damaged. The arbitrator made an award in favour of B in respect of both actual and future repair costs. W challenged the award on the grounds both of error of law and of serious irregularity. "Held" W was unable to prove an error of law; it was not relying on the award itself, but was seeking to bring in extraneous material, in particular evidence given at the arbitration, which was inadmissible. The arbitrator had not contravened any legal principle, and the application was simply an attempt to re-argue matters already put before the arbitrator. There was also no evidence that any part of the award was tainted by serious irregularity. The arbitrator had heard the evidence and come to a number of conclusions, with which W had not agreed. The arbitrator had not however committed any procedural error in reaching these conclusions. The application was therefore dismissed.