James Moore Earthmoving v Miller Construction Ltd
Series: Building Law Reports ; [2001] BLR 322-324(3)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: CA 6 April 2001. A entered into a sub-contract with B to carry out earthmoving works. B was employed by the Department of the Environment under a main contract. Disputes arose between A and B over payments A claimed to be entitled to. Following an arbitration hearing B applied to have the award set aside, and the arbitrator removed for misconduct. A appealed. The appeal was allowed. "Held": It was not appropriate to make a finding of misconduct without giving the arbitrator notice of the grounds for such action. Prejudice to a party would rarely be a relevant consideration with regard to whether an arbitrator should be removed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS64470 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 115019-1001 |
CA 6 April 2001. A entered into a sub-contract with B to carry out earthmoving works. B was employed by the Department of the Environment under a main contract. Disputes arose between A and B over payments A claimed to be entitled to. Following an arbitration hearing B applied to have the award set aside, and the arbitrator removed for misconduct. A appealed. The appeal was allowed. "Held": It was not appropriate to make a finding of misconduct without giving the arbitrator notice of the grounds for such action. Prejudice to a party would rarely be a relevant consideration with regard to whether an arbitrator should be removed.