Irregularity

La Societe Pour La Recherche, La Production, Le Transport, La Transformation Et La Commercialisation Des Hydrocarbures S.P.A. v Statoil Natural Gas LLC [2014] EWHC 875 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 31 (Apr); NLJ 11 April

In order to challenge an award on the grounds of serious irregularity under s68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 an applicant needed to show three things: first, a serious irregularity; second, a serious irregularity which fell within the closed list of categories in s68(2); third, that one or more of the irregularities identified caused or would cause the party substantial injustice. The focus of the enquiry under s68 was due process, not the correctness of the tribunal’s decision: see per Hamblen J in Abuja International Hotels v Meridian SAS [2012] EWHC 87 (Comm) at [48]–[49]. The section was designed as a long stop available only in extreme cases where the tribunal had gone so wrong in its conduct of the arbitration that justice called out for it to be corrected.