Experience and knowledge are the key
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (0626) 1 July 2006, 150-151(2)Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Summary: Considers how court challenges to arbitrators' awards can be avoided. Discusses the ways parties seek to challenge an award: serious irregularity as illustrated by "St George's Investment Co v Gemini Consulting Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 2353 (Ch), Abs68658), lack of jurisdiction, and question of law. Points out that arbitrators should not introduce new evidence as shown in "Handley v Nationwide Anglia Building Society" (QBD, Abs46677). Sets out the criteria for arguing a substantial injustice has been caused, as defined in "Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund" ([2003] EWCA Civ 84, X121614). Concludes with best practice indications for arbitrators and parties.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L134077 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 134077-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Considers how court challenges to arbitrators' awards can be avoided. Discusses the ways parties seek to challenge an award: serious irregularity as illustrated by "St George's Investment Co v Gemini Consulting Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 2353 (Ch), Abs68658), lack of jurisdiction, and question of law. Points out that arbitrators should not introduce new evidence as shown in "Handley v Nationwide Anglia Building Society" (QBD, Abs46677). Sets out the criteria for arguing a substantial injustice has been caused, as defined in "Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund" ([2003] EWCA Civ 84, X121614). Concludes with best practice indications for arbitrators and parties.