000			02114cab a22002535a 4500
001			L145577
008			081023e20080919xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u145577
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMylcrist Builders Ltd v Buck _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] EWHC 2172 (TCC), 19 September 2008.The case shows that when dealing with consumers, care must be taken to ensure that the implications of arbitration clauses are properly explained. The applicant building company (M) applied for permission to enforce an arbitration award against the respondent homeowner (B). M had been contracted to build an extension to B's bungalow with a contract referring all disputes to arbitration. After a dispute arose, M sought to commence arbitration by appointing an arbitrator (H). Following advice, B refused to submit to arbitration because the arbitration clause could be unfair. With an agreement signed only by M, H found in M's favour. Held: application refused. The arbitrator was not validly appointed under the Arbitration Act 1996, where the joint appointment of a sole arbitrator was required and the defendant refused to agree. Furthermore, the existence of an arbitration clause did not exclude or hinder a consumer's right to take legal action. The arbitration clause caused a significant imbalance to the defendant to her detriment and was thus unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The arbitration award did not have to be enforced.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aCONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999
650	2	4	_aARBITRATION ACT 1996
650	2	4	_aMYLCRIST BUILDERS LTD V BUCK
650	2	4	_aBRYEN & LANGLEY LTD V BOSTON
650	2	4	_aDIRECTOR OF FAIR TRADING V FIRST NATIONAL BANK PLC
650	2	4	_aZEALANDER V LAING HOMES LTD
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2008/2172.html _zView the case free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80887 _d80887