Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Annual Review of English Judicial Decisions on Arbitration 2005

Annual Review of English Judicial Decisions on Arbitration 2005 Stewart R. Shackleton* English courts rendered over 81 arbitration-related decisions in 2005: some 65 judgments at first instance and two dozen by the Court of Appeal. There were two decisions by the House Lords. Appeals from arbitration awards on questions of law still make up, by far, the largest category of decisions under the Act. It appears to be easier to secure an oral hearing for applications for permission to appeal and numerous decisions are now available setting out detailed reasons for the determination of applications. In 2005, the House of Lords reduced the scope for pleading error of law as a procedural irregularity in order to get round restrictions on recourse to the courts against the merits of an arbitration award.1 Further, the courts seem, finally, to have ruled out review of the adequacy of evidence for arbitrators' conclusions as an error of law. Several decisions confirmed the application of a weak principle of compétencecompétence and the court's willingness of the courts to intervene to determine threshold questions concerning the existence, scope and validity of an arbitration agreement, rather than refer these questions to arbitrators. A number of cases concerned the review and enforcement of awards against http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Annual Review of English Judicial Decisions on Arbitration 2005

Annual Review of English Judicial Decisions on Arbitration 2005

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2005 (1) – Jan 1, 2005

Abstract

Stewart R. Shackleton* English courts rendered over 81 arbitration-related decisions in 2005: some 65 judgments at first instance and two dozen by the Court of Appeal. There were two decisions by the House Lords. Appeals from arbitration awards on questions of law still make up, by far, the largest category of decisions under the Act. It appears to be easier to secure an oral hearing for applications for permission to appeal and numerous decisions are now available setting out detailed reasons for the determination of applications. In 2005, the House of Lords reduced the scope for pleading error of law as a procedural irregularity in order to get round restrictions on recourse to the courts against the merits of an arbitration award.1 Further, the courts seem, finally, to have ruled out review of the adequacy of evidence for arbitrators' conclusions as an error of law. Several decisions confirmed the application of a weak principle of compétencecompétence and the court's willingness of the courts to intervene to determine threshold questions concerning the existence, scope and validity of an arbitration agreement, rather than refer these questions to arbitrators. A number of cases concerned the review and enforcement of awards against

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/annual-review-of-english-judicial-decisions-on-arbitration-2005-IiAOSW0PJ2
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2009
Subject
Articles
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2005.1.xlix
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Stewart R. Shackleton* English courts rendered over 81 arbitration-related decisions in 2005: some 65 judgments at first instance and two dozen by the Court of Appeal. There were two decisions by the House Lords. Appeals from arbitration awards on questions of law still make up, by far, the largest category of decisions under the Act. It appears to be easier to secure an oral hearing for applications for permission to appeal and numerous decisions are now available setting out detailed reasons for the determination of applications. In 2005, the House of Lords reduced the scope for pleading error of law as a procedural irregularity in order to get round restrictions on recourse to the courts against the merits of an arbitration award.1 Further, the courts seem, finally, to have ruled out review of the adequacy of evidence for arbitrators' conclusions as an error of law. Several decisions confirmed the application of a weak principle of compétencecompétence and the court's willingness of the courts to intervene to determine threshold questions concerning the existence, scope and validity of an arbitration agreement, rather than refer these questions to arbitrators. A number of cases concerned the review and enforcement of awards against

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.