000			02052cab a2200181 4500
001			##L133123
008			060412n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133123
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aSurefire Systems Ltd v Guardian ECL Ltd
260			_c2005
520			_a[2005] EWHC 1860 TCC, 10 August 2005. S applied for leave to appeal under the Arbitration Act s69 against an arbitrator's award. S had engaged G to install cabling in a fire and voice alarm system. When the parties were unable to agree as to final payment, G commenced arbitration. The arbitrator found that G was entitled to an additional payment in respect of variations plus interest, and clarified his award some days later after receiving further correspondence. S argued that the arbitrator had ignored the burden of proof and had awarded sums to G on no supporting evidence, and had disregarded cl 10 of the subcontract, as G had failed to comply with the mechanism contained therein. "Held": s69 was intended to prevent parties dressing up questions of fact as questions of law. The evidence admissible on a leave to appeal was limited and generally confined to the award itself and any evidence proving that the identified question of law was of public importance. In this case, the arbitrator had correctly identified the burden of proof and it was not the court's function to review his assessment of the evidence. Neither party had made any submissions at the arbitration hearing as to the meaning or effect of cl 10, so it was no surprise the arbitrator had not referred to it. On neither ground were the requirements of s69 satisfied, and S's application was refused.
650	2	4	_aSUREFIRE SYSTEMS LTD V GUARDIAN ECL LTD
650	2	4	_aARBITRATION ACT 1996
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION-ARBITRATION AWARDS
856	4	1	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2005/1860.html _zView the item free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c76813 _d76813