000			02106cam a2200229 4500
001			X125797
008			040408n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125797
100			_aDensham, W.
245			_aMovement on arbitrators' awards
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v (0411) 13 March 2004, 132-132(3)
520			_aLooks at recent court challenges to rent reviews under the Arbitration Act 1996 s68. Previously most challenges to arbitrators awards were made under s67 of the Act which permits a challenge on the grounds that the tribunal did not have substantive jurisdiction. S68 applications have been very scarce and allow challenges on the grounds of serious irregularity and substantial injustice. However, the courts heard three of these in 2003 including "Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund" ([2003] EWCA Civ 84, X121614). This concerned an award which was proposed by the landlord's expert which was double the current rent. The tenant tried to get the award set aside but the judge dismissed the tenant's claim on the basis that the lease contemplated that the arbitrator would, to a degree, use his own knowledge. The CA agreed with this. In "Guardcliffe Properties Ltd v City and St James Property Holdings" ([2003] EWHC 215 (Ch), [2003] 25 EG 143) the award was set aside as the arbitrator had made a substantial allowance for a rent-free period. It was found that the arbitrator had failed to act in accordance with s33 of the act and his failings had given rise to a substantial injustice to the landlord. Concludes that the courts will not intervene in an arbitrators award unless the arbitrator has stepped outside the boundary of his discretion to an unreasonable extent.
650			_aCHECKPOINT LTD V STRATHCLYDE PENSION FUND
650			_aWARBOROUGH INVESTMENTS LTD V ROBINSON AND SONS (HOLDINGS) LTD
650			_aGUARDCLIFFE PROPERTIES LTD V CITY AND ST JAMES
650			_aARBITRATORS' AWARDS
650			_aARBITRATION ACT 1996 S67
650			_aARBITRATION ACT 1996 S68
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
999			_c74363 _d74363