000			01979cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS65937
008			020923n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u119796
100			_aMurdoch, S.
245			_aNo cause for complaint
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette _v (0229) 20 July 2002, 148(1)
520			_aA recent High Court decision on a rent review arbitration, confirmed that challenging an arbitration award is not easy. In "Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund"[2002] the parties were unable to agree the new rent, and in accordance with the rent review clause, the matter was referred to a chartered surveyor with specific experience in the market of a storage and distribution depot. He argued for an annual rent of £440 000 on behalf of the landlord due to comparitive examples. The tenants surveyor however advised the tenant to submit a rent of £273 000 pa based on view that comparisons had not been made with like examples. The arbitrator awarded the full figure to the landlord. The tenant appealed arguing there had been irregularities in the proceedings. The appeal failed as judge argued that the arbitrator had not acted unjustly when using personal experience of the market. Judge decided that irregularities in arbitration procedure have to be non-substantive, serious and cause substantial injustice to challenge a ruling. Secondarily the judge refused leave to appeal, giving no reasons, stating that the Human Rights Act did not affect the ruling to withhold reasons.
590			_aABS
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
650			_aCHECKPOINT LTD V STRATHCLYDE PENSION FUND
650			_aARBITRATION ACT 1996
650			_aARBITRATION ACT 1979
650			_aHUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
650			_aRENT REVIEWS
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
942			_n0
999			_c71196 _d71196