Expert Legal Insights

Photo of nicholas-fletcher|Nicholas Fletcher

The court has upheld the principle that, unless the language of the arbitration clause makes it clear that certain issues are not within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, an arbitration clauses should be construed on the basis that the parties intended all disputes arising out of the agreement to be determined by the same tribunal – including disputes involving criminal conduct and bribery. The court also upheld the principle that the threshold for challenging an award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act for serious irregularity is high and that the court should only intervene “where the tribunal has gone so wrong in its conduct of the arbitration, and where its conduct is so far removed from what could reasonably be expected from the arbitral process, that justice calls out for it to be corrected.”

Photo of nicholas-fletcher|Nicholas Fletcher

The court’s discretion under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act to order a party to comply with a peremptory order is not merely a rubber stamping exercise but it does not require the court to revisit the merits of the tribunal’s order or the underlying award. The fact that the tribunal’s order is under appeal is a factor to be taken into account by the court but should not be conclusive.

Photo of timothy-pugh|Tim Pugh

Planning and Environment Partner, Tim Pugh, part of BLP’s Energy & Natural Resources Sector Group, looks at the current legal framework surrounding shale gas and fracking in the UK.

This site uses cookies to help us improve your browsing experience. For further information or to change your cookie settings, view our privacy policy.