The tenants sought to challenge the arbitrator’s award setting the rent payable under the lease. They claimed that he had improperly refered to his own experience of the market, to support his decision, and this committed a serious irregularity under section 68(2).
Held: The system of arbitration expected an arbitrator to rely to some extent upon his experience. It was difficult to formulate a test which could identify the point at which an arbitrator relying upon his experience should disclose this and invite comment from the parties. The suggested distinction between ‘general expert knowledge’ and ‘knowledge of specific facts relevant to the particular case’ was not always easy to apply. In this case it might be unfair for him to draw upon more than the level of knowledge which one might expect of someone asked to arbitrate in such a case. Here surprise or sympathy for the tenant could not support a finding of any serious procedural irregularity.
Ward LJ said that the court should ‘try to assess how the [applicant] would have conducted his case but for the procedural irregularity’, and continued: ‘It is the denial of the fair hearing, to summarise procedural irregularity, which must be shown to have caused a substantial injustice. A technical irregularity may not. The failure to deal with a substantial issue probably will.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Jonathon Parker
Citations:
Times 12-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 84, [2003] 14 EG 124
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Fox v Wellfair Ltd CA 1981
An expert arbitrator should not in effect give evidence to himself without disclosing the evidence on which he relies to the parties, or if only one to that party. He should not act on his private opinion without disclosing it. It is undoubtedly . .
Cited – Top Shop Estates Ltd v Danino 1985
If using his personal knowledge of a specialised character rather than such as may be generally known to an expert in that area, then the arbitrator must afford the parties the chance to comment on that knowledge. . .
Cited – Egmatra A G v Marco Trading Corporation 1999
The test of ‘substantial injustice’ is intended to be applied by a way of support of the arbitral process, not by way of interference with that process. It is only in those cases where it can be said that what has happened is so far removed from . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Winchester City Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1978
Forbes J said: ‘What does ‘new evidence’ in this context mean? It cannot mean that, because the inspector has not seen it before, everything that he sees is new evidence. If it meant that, every time that an inspector went on a view he would have to . .
Cited – Eagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-Brown CA 1985
There is no duty on a judge, in giving his reasons, to deal with every argument presented by counsel in support of his case. When dealing with an application in chambers to strike out for want of prosecution a judge should give his reasons in . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Warborough Investments Ltd v S Robinson and Sons (Holdings) Ltd CA 10-Jun-2003
The applicant sought remission of the decision of the arbitrator on a rent review. The arbitrator had taken a different approach from that suggested by either party’s expert.
Held: Arbitrators should be give a wide margin of appreciation. Even . .
Cited – Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179014