Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
He then goes on to conclude that TAL fails in its claim to be paid �47,527.98 being the balance due on foot of the Final Account of �54,677.98 less agreed defects.
(i) That the determination of the question will substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties;
(iii) That, on the basis of the findings of fact in the award, either the decision of the tribunal on the question is obviously wrong, or the question is one of general public importance and the decision of the tribunal is at least open to serious doubt; and
(iv) that, despite the agreement of the parties to resolve the matter by arbitration, it is just and proper in all the circumstances for the court to determine the question: see paragraph 578 of Halsbury�'s Laws of England Volume 2.
It is important to note that an application for permission to appeal must identify the question of law to be determined on stated grounds on which it is alleged that permission to appeal should be granted; see Section 69(4) of the Act.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.