of relief afresh with an open mind". • In passing, however, Baker J corrected what he described as "the misapprehension" (shared by the parties and judge in The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Limited [2015] EWHC 311 (TCC))" that setting aside rather than remitting an award involved without more, or required, replacing the tribunal". Baker J considered that s.68 alone does not empower the court to remove an arbitrator, that power being reserved to s.24 of the Act, and if a party sought such relief it would need to make a s.24 claim, joining the arbitrator as a party.
Limited intervention
While this case and others in the last year may suggest successful challenges are on the rise, parties to arbitration still face a high hurdle to establishing serious irregularity causing substantial injustice, and the courts will be slow to interfere in the arbitral process. It is noteworthy too that, even though the court was in no doubt as to irregularity and injustice in this case, it still had faith in the arbitrator's professional ability to consider the issue afresh with the court's supervisory guidance - a sign that intervention in the arbitral process may be minimised (at least in some instances) even where there is a successful challenge.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Gordon Bell Partner Head of International Arbitration London
Christopher Richards PSL Senior Associate London
Gowling WLG is an international law firm built on the belief that the best way to serve you is to be in tune with your world, aligned with your opportunity and ambitious for your success.