Fulham Broadway Trustees No.1 Ltd v Telefonica UK Ltd [2014] EWHC 1048 (Ch)
Edward Peters acted for the successful tenant in this arbitration claim in the High Court, Chancery Division. The rent review arbitration concerned the rent payable for a shop in the Fulham Broadway Shopping Centre, conducted on the basis of written submissions without a hearing. The landlord challenged the Award under s. 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on two grounds. It alleged that the arbitrator had failed to comply with his general duties under s. 33 of the 1996 Act, by supposedly failing to give the landlord a reasonable opportunity to give evidence on an issue; and that the arbitrator had failed to deal with all the issues that were put to him. The judgment considers, amongst other issues: the nature of such rent review arbitrations, and the general approach which the courts should take when reviewing an arbitrator’s conduct of such an arbitration; the difference between “a failure to deal with all the issues” within the meaning of s. 68(2)(d) of the 1996 Act, and a failure to give reasons for the way in which an issue is decided; the difference between an “issue” and an argument or submission which is made about an issue; and the nature of the evidence which needs to be adduced to satisfy the “substantial injustice” test under s. 68(2) of the 1996 Act.
Back to news listing
