Movement on arbitrators' awards

Looks at recent court challenges to rent reviews under the Arbitration Act 1996 s68. Previously most challenges to arbitrators awards were made under s67 of the Act which permits a challenge on the grounds that the tribunal did not have substantive jurisdiction. S68 applications have been very scarce and allow challenges on the grounds of serious irregularity and substantial injustice. However, the courts heard three of these in 2003 including "Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund" ([2003] EWCA Civ 84, X121614). This concerned an award which was proposed by the landlord's expert which was double the current rent. The tenant tried to get the award set aside but the judge dismissed the tenant's claim on the basis that the lease contemplated that the arbitrator would, to a degree, use his own knowledge. The CA agreed with this. In "Guardcliffe Properties Ltd v City and St James Property Holdings" ([2003] EWHC 215 (Ch), [2003] 25 EG 143) the award was set aside as the arbitrator had made a substantial allowance for a rent-free period. It was found that the arbitrator had failed to act in accordance with s33 of the act and his failings had given rise to a substantial injustice to the landlord. Concludes that the courts will not intervene in an arbitrators award unless the arbitrator has stepped outside the boundary of his discretion to an unreasonable extent.