kaneira)ecbComc0514
The claimant, a professional cricketer disciplined for alleged match fixing, sought to challenge the results of an arbitration of his dispute with the respondent. He alleged a serious irregularity in that the Arbitral Panel had exceeded its powers in the punishments imposed.
Held: The application for leave was refused. Though he was bound by the Rules as at the yeaar he signed them, the later procedures under which the later proceedings were brought were correctly applied. Similarly his claim that the life ban imposed was disproportionate was not an assertion that the Tribunal exceeded its powers, but rather only that it exercised powers it had wrongly, and such a claim did not fall within section 68 of the 1996 Act.
The difference in his treatment from thaat imposed on others had been properly considered and explained and was a valid exercise of the absolute discretion given to the Panel.
Hamblin J
[2014] EWHC 1348 (Comm)
Bailii
Arbitration Act 1996 68(3) 69
Citing:
Cited – Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo Spa and others HL 30-Jun-2005
The House had to consider whether the arbitrator had acted in excess of his powers under s38, saying the arbitrator had misconstrued the contract. The arbitrator had made his award in different currencies.
Held: The question remained whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.525154