The parties had disputed the final value of works of construction. The dispute was referred to an arbitration, the costs of which came vastly to exceed the sums at issue. An application was now made for the award to be remitted.
Held: A request for an extension of time for an application under section 60 of the 1996 Act was governed by section 80. Once asked under section 57 to make one correction to his award, the arbitrator had a duty to consider the entire award for other possible corrections. The arbitrator had a duty to adopt procedures which were proportionate to the sums inviolved. He had failed in that duty.
He had failed to take control of the prolix pleadings and schedules lodged by the partes. The schedules were not in appropriate Scott schedule form, and items had not been consolidated. The award was produced only after delay and was itself diffuse and lacking focus with significant errors and omissions.
Judges:
Anthony Thornton QC HHJ
Citations:
[2001] All ER (D) 232
Statutes:
Arbitration Act 1996 57 68 70 76 79 80
Arbitration
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.536639
