000			01476cab a2200241 4500
001			##L134077
008			060706n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u134077
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aBannister, Edward
245	0	0	_aExperience and knowledge are the key
260			_c2006
490		0	_aEstates Gazette _v(0626) 1 July 2006, 150-151(2)
520			_aConsiders 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.
590			_aIKA180706
650	2	4	_aST GEORGE'S INVESTMENT CO V GEMINI CONSULTING LTD
650	2	4	_aHANDLEY V NATIONWIDE ANGLIA BUILDING SOCIETY
650	2	4	_aCHECKPOINT LTD V STRATHCLYDE PENSION FUND
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION-ARBITRATION AWARDS
700	1		_aPhillips, Antony
942			_n0
999			_c77359 _d77359