Arbitration Act 1996 section 42: neither a rubber stamp nor a licence to revisit
Section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 acts as an effective, although rarely used, mechanism to enforce a recalcitrant party to comply with an arbitrator’s peremptory order. But how deep into the merits of a peremptory order will a court delve before enforcing it?
In the recent case of Patley Wood Farm LLP v Brake and another, the High Court concluded that although section 42 gives the court discretion as to whether to enforce a peremptory order (i.e. an order that a party comply with a particular order by a deadline that has typically been set following the failure of a party to comply with a procedural order), a court is not required to revisit the merits of a tribunal’s decision to make such an order when exercising its discretion to enforce it.
This decision enforces the procedural nature of the court’s role in considering a section 42 application and should embolden parties to an arbitration to take recalcitrant arbitral opponents to court without fear that the court will review the merits of an arbitrator’s award or order…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the DLA Piper briefing.
News from DLA Piper
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from DLA Piper
Health Alert — Appleton v Norris; Psychology Board of Australia v GA; Reben v Medical Board of Australia; and more
DLA Piper has released the 15 September 2014 issue of its Health Alert, which focuses on judgments, legislation and reports in the health sector.
What if you had to return all the revenue you received from every customer in California for the last several years?
Analysis from The Lawyer
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.
A new breed of lawyer is smoothing the path for companies entering emerging or unstable jurisdictions