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.
MS. J. STEWART (instructed by BSG Solicitors LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. MR. S. HACKETT (instructed by Griffin�Law LLP) appeared on behalf of the First�and Second�Defendants. MR. D. BRYNMOR THOMAS (instructed by Weightmans LLP) appeared on behalf of the Third�Defendant. ____________________
"Having visited and spoken to [T], it is my view that he is not in a fit state to take the steps required of him at this point in time. Even if he was physically strong enough, and I�do not see how he is, he is unable to concentrate for any period of time and his instructions appear confused. He seems unable to hold a thought for any period of time.
(1) The duty of the arbitrator in making procedural decisions is reflected in s. 33(1)(b) of the Act in the following terms:
(2) Guidance on the application of s. 24(1)(d) is to be found in para. 106 of the report on the Arbitration Bill by the Departmental Advisory Committee of February�1996 ("the DAC report"), which provides:
(3) Accordingly, the court will only remove an arbitrator where the conduct of the arbitrator is such as to go so beyond anything that could reasonably be defended as to cause substantial injustice, and only in the very rare case where an arbitrator so conducts proceedings that it can fairly be stated that instead of carrying through the object of arbitration, as stated in the Act, he is in effect frustrating that object.
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.