An Agricultural Holdings Act arbitration award can be unclear; but not unjust
In May, the case of Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd v Spence (2013) considered whether an arbitrator had provided adequate reasons for his award in the context of a challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, relating to a claim pursuant to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
This was an arbitration claim arising out of an award determining the rent payable in relation to an agricultural holding, pursuant to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. The claimant, the landlord, sought an order under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to set aside the award or to seek reconsideration of the matter.
The act provides for challenges to arbitration awards on the grounds of serious irregularity that causes substantial injustice. The central question in this case was whether an arbitrator had provided adequate reasons for his award…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Mitchell v News Group, resolving recent uncertainty about the implementation of Jackson reforms — at least for the time being.
There is an implied term allowing a paying responding party under an adjudication award six years from the date of payment to challenge the adjudicator’s decision.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why