Arbitration Law Monthly

In X v Y [2018] EWHC 741 (Comm) there was an appeal against an arbitration award on various grounds of serious irregularity under section 68(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996. Bryan J disposed of the application by his finding that the claimant had failed, as required by section 70(2) of the 1996 Act, to seek relief from the tribunal itself in accordance with the slip rule in section 57 of the 1996 Act.

The decision of Andrew SingerQC in A vB [2018] EWHC 3366 (TCC) considers the applicationof the serious irregularity principle to the exercise by the tribunal of its discretionto exclude evidence.

The decision of Popplewell J in Sodzawiczny v Ruhan [2018] EWHC 1908 (Comm) provides a comprehensive discussion of the phrase “matter … to be referred to arbitration” used in section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 as the touchstone for the grant of a stay of judicial proceedings.

Thisarticle summarises the most significant and influential arbitration cases heardbefore the courts of Hong Kong during 2018. By Edward Yang Liu and Geoffrey Laiof Hill Dickinson.

It is open to the parties to vary the periods laid down in the Limitation Act 1980 for the commencement of proceedings. In the shipping industry, and for cargo claims in particular, time limits are relatively short and failure to adhere to them removes not just the right to go to arbitration but also defeats the claim itself so that there is no alternative possibility of bringing court proceedings.

In Noe v Ratzapper Australasia Ltd [2018] NZCA 597 the New Zealand Court of Appeal held, applying general principles, that a party to an arbitration who had been barred by the tribunal’s order from contesting the claims against him by reason of his failure to comply with directions, could not rely upon the alleged fault of his own lawyers as a defence to enforcement on public policy grounds.