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

Learn More →

Claire & Co Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Claire & Co Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd 19 April 2005 Jackson J Technology and Construction Court [2005] EWHC 1022 [2005] ArbLR 15 Arbitration award--Challenge--Jurisdiction--Arbitrator not taking into account amount of profit margin allegedly conceded by expert accountant during cross­examination--Whether concession binding on arbitrator (no)-- Whether to set aside award (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 67 Arbitration award--Challenge--Procedural irregularity--Arbitrator not taking into account profit margin allegedly conceded by expert accountant during cross­examination--Arbitrator applying profit margin set out in evidence-- Whether procedural irregularity (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 68 Arbitration award--Challenge--Procedural irregularity--Fairness--Arbitrator applying wrong percentage of profit margin set out in evidence--Whether procedural irregularity (no) Arbitration Act 1996, s 68 Arbitration award-- Challenge--Appeal on question of law--Extension of time--Additional unsubstantiated grounds put forward out of time--No prospect of success-- Whether to extend time (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, ss 70(3), and 80(5) Concession by expert witness not binding on arbitrator Claire & Co operated as a real estate business. In 1996, Claire & Co decided to establish two new offices. The second office was located in Torridon Road, London. Thames Water commenced extensive water works in Torridon Road at about the same time. Under the Water Industry Act 1991, Thames Water had the power to lay pipes in streets, deal with http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Claire & Co Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd

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

Claire & Co Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd

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

Abstract

19 April 2005 Jackson J Technology and Construction Court [2005] EWHC 1022 [2005] ArbLR 15 Arbitration award--Challenge--Jurisdiction--Arbitrator not taking into account amount of profit margin allegedly conceded by expert accountant during cross­examination--Whether concession binding on arbitrator (no)-- Whether to set aside award (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 67 Arbitration award--Challenge--Procedural irregularity--Arbitrator not taking into account profit margin allegedly conceded by expert accountant during cross­examination--Arbitrator applying profit margin set out in evidence-- Whether procedural irregularity (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 68 Arbitration award--Challenge--Procedural irregularity--Fairness--Arbitrator applying wrong percentage of profit margin set out in evidence--Whether procedural irregularity (no) Arbitration Act 1996, s 68 Arbitration award-- Challenge--Appeal on question of law--Extension of time--Additional unsubstantiated grounds put forward out of time--No prospect of success-- Whether to extend time (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, ss 70(3), and 80(5) Concession by expert witness not binding on arbitrator Claire & Co operated as a real estate business. In 1996, Claire & Co decided to establish two new offices. The second office was located in Torridon Road, London. Thames Water commenced extensive water works in Torridon Road at about the same time. Under the Water Industry Act 1991, Thames Water had the power to lay pipes in streets, deal with

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/claire-co-ltd-v-thames-water-utilities-ltd-mI9MM4t65J
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2009
Subject
Judgments
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2005.1.231
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

19 April 2005 Jackson J Technology and Construction Court [2005] EWHC 1022 [2005] ArbLR 15 Arbitration award--Challenge--Jurisdiction--Arbitrator not taking into account amount of profit margin allegedly conceded by expert accountant during cross­examination--Whether concession binding on arbitrator (no)-- Whether to set aside award (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 67 Arbitration award--Challenge--Procedural irregularity--Arbitrator not taking into account profit margin allegedly conceded by expert accountant during cross­examination--Arbitrator applying profit margin set out in evidence-- Whether procedural irregularity (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 68 Arbitration award--Challenge--Procedural irregularity--Fairness--Arbitrator applying wrong percentage of profit margin set out in evidence--Whether procedural irregularity (no) Arbitration Act 1996, s 68 Arbitration award-- Challenge--Appeal on question of law--Extension of time--Additional unsubstantiated grounds put forward out of time--No prospect of success-- Whether to extend time (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, ss 70(3), and 80(5) Concession by expert witness not binding on arbitrator Claire & Co operated as a real estate business. In 1996, Claire & Co decided to establish two new offices. The second office was located in Torridon Road, London. Thames Water commenced extensive water works in Torridon Road at about the same time. Under the Water Industry Act 1991, Thames Water had the power to lay pipes in streets, deal with

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.