Image from Google Jackets

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v A Tank (1) Moulson Chemplant Ltd (2)

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWHC 1055 Comm, 12 May 2006. Application by N for the removal of T, an arbitrator, and for an order setting aside his decisions. T was appointed under the short procedure arbitration rules of the Institution of Chemical Engineers to resolve a dispute between N and M. N expressed concern about a number of T's actions, in particular his direct contact with witnesses, one of whom N believed was likely to be hostile because of a separate matter. N gave notice to terminate the short procedure. T awarded M's costs against N. N argued that it had suffered substantial injustice, both because there were doubts about T's impartiality, and because his conduct amounted to a serious irregularity. "Held": T's conduct in contacting witnesses directly amounted to a failure to conduct the proceedings properly, such that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias. For that reason, his decisions had to be set aside, and T removed as arbitrator. Apart from this, T's decisions and actions did not disclose serious irregularity. The application was granted.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 134373-1001

[2006] EWHC 1055 Comm, 12 May 2006. Application by N for the removal of T, an arbitrator, and for an order setting aside his decisions. T was appointed under the short procedure arbitration rules of the Institution of Chemical Engineers to resolve a dispute between N and M. N expressed concern about a number of T's actions, in particular his direct contact with witnesses, one of whom N believed was likely to be hostile because of a separate matter. N gave notice to terminate the short procedure. T awarded M's costs against N. N argued that it had suffered substantial injustice, both because there were doubts about T's impartiality, and because his conduct amounted to a serious irregularity. "Held": T's conduct in contacting witnesses directly amounted to a failure to conduct the proceedings properly, such that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias. For that reason, his decisions had to be set aside, and T removed as arbitrator. Apart from this, T's decisions and actions did not disclose serious irregularity. The application was granted.