000			02000cab a2200205 4500
001			##L134524
008			060814n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u134524
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aKershaw Mechanical Services Limited v Kendrick Construction Limited
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWHC 727 (TCC) 2 March 2006. Appeal by KM against an award pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1996 s69. KM had been employed by D to supply and install mechanical services in a new building, the subcontract being supplemented by correspondence between KM and D. The correspondence included a qualification of the contract providing that subcontract costings would be adjusted if final design information submitted to KM differed from that originally supplied. The matter went to arbitration, following a disagreement over the sums payable to KM on its final account, KM arguing that the arbitrator had erred in his interpretation of the qualification. "Held": the principal document to be considered in an appeal under s69 was the arbitral award; however, the court also had to consider any document referred to in the award. The court had to read the award as a whole in a fair and reasonable way. Deference had to be given to the arbitrator's decisions on questions of law, based on his experience, and they could only be reversed if it was clear that he had come to the wrong answer. In the present case, the arbitrator had construed the qualification correctly and had not made an error of law. Appeal was therefore dismissed.
590			_aIKA220806
650	2	4	_aKERSHAW MECHANICAL SERVICES LTD V KENDRICK CONSTRUCTION LTD
650	2	4	_aARBITRATION ACT 1996 S69
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION-ARBITRATION AWARDS
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/727.html _zView the item free of charge at www.bailii.org/...
942			_n0
999			_c77550 _d77550