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

Learn More →

Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd and Anr

Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd and Anr 14 July 2005 HH Judge Coulson QC Queen's Bench Division [2005] EWHC 1631 [2005] ArbLR 54 Arbitration award--Challenge--Time limits--Application to challenge one day late--No explanation for decision to wait until last minute--Whether to extend time (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 70(3) Arbitration award--Challenge--Loss of rights--No objection to conduct of arbitrator prior to award--Deliberate decision not to comment on draft award--Arbitrator inviting comment on proposal not to deal with certain issues for lack of information--Applicant not answering arbitrator's invitation-- Whether loss of rights to challenge on grounds of procedural irregularity (yes)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 73 Arbitration award--Challenge--Procedural irregularity--Issues--Whether arbitrator failing to deal with issues (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 68(2)(a)(d) and (f) Arbitrator--Removal--Inability to conduct proceedings--Whether arbitrator failed to define scope of oral hearing (no)--Whether arbitrator took too long to understand counsel's submissions during oral hearing (no)--Whether to remove arbitrator (no) - Arbitration Act 1996, s 24 Loss of rights to challenge where failure to protest The Sinclairs concluded a contract with contractors, Woods, for the construction of a swimming pool complex for a sum of £307,334. The contract contained an arbitration clause. Extensive defects became apparent. A report was commissioned by the Sinclairs from Robert Bloxham Jones Associates (`RBJA') which http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd and Anr

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

Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd and Anr

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

Abstract

14 July 2005 HH Judge Coulson QC Queen's Bench Division [2005] EWHC 1631 [2005] ArbLR 54 Arbitration award--Challenge--Time limits--Application to challenge one day late--No explanation for decision to wait until last minute--Whether to extend time (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 70(3) Arbitration award--Challenge--Loss of rights--No objection to conduct of arbitrator prior to award--Deliberate decision not to comment on draft award--Arbitrator inviting comment on proposal not to deal with certain issues for lack of information--Applicant not answering arbitrator's invitation-- Whether loss of rights to challenge on grounds of procedural irregularity (yes)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 73 Arbitration award--Challenge--Procedural irregularity--Issues--Whether arbitrator failing to deal with issues (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 68(2)(a)(d) and (f) Arbitrator--Removal--Inability to conduct proceedings--Whether arbitrator failed to define scope of oral hearing (no)--Whether arbitrator took too long to understand counsel's submissions during oral hearing (no)--Whether to remove arbitrator (no) - Arbitration Act 1996, s 24 Loss of rights to challenge where failure to protest The Sinclairs concluded a contract with contractors, Woods, for the construction of a swimming pool complex for a sum of £307,334. The contract contained an arbitration clause. Extensive defects became apparent. A report was commissioned by the Sinclairs from Robert Bloxham Jones Associates (`RBJA') which

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/sinclair-v-woods-of-winchester-ltd-and-anr-aEhMYLqKzN
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2009
Subject
Judgments
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2005.1.767
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

14 July 2005 HH Judge Coulson QC Queen's Bench Division [2005] EWHC 1631 [2005] ArbLR 54 Arbitration award--Challenge--Time limits--Application to challenge one day late--No explanation for decision to wait until last minute--Whether to extend time (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 70(3) Arbitration award--Challenge--Loss of rights--No objection to conduct of arbitrator prior to award--Deliberate decision not to comment on draft award--Arbitrator inviting comment on proposal not to deal with certain issues for lack of information--Applicant not answering arbitrator's invitation-- Whether loss of rights to challenge on grounds of procedural irregularity (yes)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 73 Arbitration award--Challenge--Procedural irregularity--Issues--Whether arbitrator failing to deal with issues (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, s 68(2)(a)(d) and (f) Arbitrator--Removal--Inability to conduct proceedings--Whether arbitrator failed to define scope of oral hearing (no)--Whether arbitrator took too long to understand counsel's submissions during oral hearing (no)--Whether to remove arbitrator (no) - Arbitration Act 1996, s 24 Loss of rights to challenge where failure to protest The Sinclairs concluded a contract with contractors, Woods, for the construction of a swimming pool complex for a sum of £307,334. The contract contained an arbitration clause. Extensive defects became apparent. A report was commissioned by the Sinclairs from Robert Bloxham Jones Associates (`RBJA') which

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.