{"title":"Has a sufficient case been made for the Law Commission’s proposals in respect of section 67?","authors":"Alexander Gunning","doi":"10.1093/arbint/aiad048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Law Commission has recommended reforming the approach to be taken where (i) a challenge is made in the English Courts to an arbitration award on grounds of lack of substantive jurisdiction and (ii) the challenging party has participated in the arbitration under protest. It has recommended including in the Act the power to make rules of court limiting both the grounds for such a challenge and the evidence that may be heard. The Law Commission’s proposed reform stems from concern that the present approach could be wasteful and unfair. This article seeks to explore whether the now extensive experience of challenges under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 justifies those apprehensions.","PeriodicalId":37425,"journal":{"name":"Arbitration International","volume":"16 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arbitration International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiad048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Law Commission has recommended reforming the approach to be taken where (i) a challenge is made in the English Courts to an arbitration award on grounds of lack of substantive jurisdiction and (ii) the challenging party has participated in the arbitration under protest. It has recommended including in the Act the power to make rules of court limiting both the grounds for such a challenge and the evidence that may be heard. The Law Commission’s proposed reform stems from concern that the present approach could be wasteful and unfair. This article seeks to explore whether the now extensive experience of challenges under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 justifies those apprehensions.
期刊介绍：
Launched in 1985, Arbitration International provides quarterly coverage for national and international developments in the world of arbitration. The journal aims to maintain balance between academic debate and practical contributions to the field, providing both topical material on current developments and analytic scholarship of permanent interest. Arbitrators, counsel, judges, scholars and government officials will find the journal enhances their understanding of a broad range of topics in commercial and investment arbitration. Features include (i) articles covering all major arbitration rules and national jurisdictions written by respected international practitioners and scholars, (ii) cutting edge (case) notes covering recent developments and ongoing debates in the field, (iii) book reviews of the latest publications in the world of arbitration, (iv) Letters to the Editor and (v) agora grouping articles related to a common theme. Arbitration International maintains a balance between controversial subjects for debate and topics geared toward practical use by arbitrators, lawyers, academics, judges, corporate advisors and government officials.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
