UK: Challenging An Arbitration Decision: Serious Irregularity

Last Updated: 7 May 2015
Article by Jeremy Glover

It would be fair to say that a party wishing to challenge an arbitration award, under the 1996 Arbitration Act, in England and Wales will as a general rule face an uphill struggle. Even where challenges are made, the courts tend to uphold the original award. This makes the recent decision of Mr Justice Akenhead in the case of The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Raytheon Systems Limited1 all the more interesting.

Mr Justice Akenhead had to consider a challenge to an award on the grounds that there had been a serious irregularity under section 68(2) (d) of the 1996 Arbitration Act. As the Judge noted, there was:

"no previous authority which substantially mirrors the facts of the current case and, indeed, there are relatively few reported decisions on Section 68(2) (d)".

Section 68(2) of the 1996 Arbitration Act provides that:

"(1) A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award ...

(2) Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant ...

(d) failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;

(3) If there is shown to be serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award, the court may —

(a) remit the award to the tribunal, in whole or in part, for reconsideration,

(b) set the award aside in whole or in part, or

(c) declare the award to be of no effect, in whole or in part.

The court shall not exercise its power to set aside or to declare an award to be of no effect, in whole or in part, unless it is satisfied that it would be inappropriate to remit the matters in question to the tribunal for reconsideration."

To succeed under section 68, an applicant must prove that there is:

  1. a "serious irregularity"; and
  2. that the serious irregularity caused substantial injustice to the applicant.

The dispute itself related to an eBorders contract (or technology system, in order to reform UK border controls by putting in place an electronic system to vet travellers leaving and entering Britain by checking their details against police, security and immigration watchlists). That contract had been terminated by the Home Office in July 2010. The case in question was a substantial international arbitration, with large legal teams. There had been a 42-day hearing which took place over six months. If the challenge succeeded, the resulting need to rerun such an arbitration would be a significant undertaking.

The tribunal decided that the Home Office had unlawfully terminated and thereby repudiated the contract and awarded Raytheon damages which included £126,013,801 for a claim known as claim A4 – Transfer of Assets. Other sums awarded amounted to £59,581,658 plus interest.

In short, it was the Home Office's case that there had been "serious irregularity" on the part of the tribunal in failing to deal with all the issues that were put to it, in particular important parts of its case on liability and quantum with regard to claim A4. Instead the tribunal had only addressed whether there was breach by the Home Office of a condition precedent in the termination clause. The Home Office also said that the tribunal had ignored its case on the value of assets transferred after termination as well as certain quantum issues.

Mr Justice Akenhead noted that section 68 reflected the:

"internationally accepted view that the Court should be able to correct serious failures to comply with the 'due process' of arbitral proceedings".

He accepted that the threshold test for "serious irregularity" was a high one. The requirement that the serious irregularity has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant was there to eliminate technical challenges. In the view of the Judge, section 68 should not be used to get around restrictions on appeals of law or fact. As noted at the start of this article, the courts will try and uphold arbitral awards where they can.

The Judge made clear that what the court needs to do in deciding whether to remit or set aside is to:

"consider all the circumstances and background facts relating to the dispute, the award, the arbitrators and the overall desirability of remission and setting aside, as well as the ramifications, both in terms of costs, time and justice, of doing either ".

Therefore what is required is a

"pragmatic consideration of all the circumstances and relevant facts to determine what it is best to do but it necessarily covers the interests of justice as between the parties".

It is important to note that if it is the case that the arbitrators have misdirected themselves on the facts, that does not amount to a failure to deal with an issue. However, that was not what was being argued by the Home Office here. First of all, the Judge held that the tribunal had not addressed whether or not all or substantially all of the delay was the actual fault or responsibility of Raytheon. Further, Mr Justice Akenhead was of the view that:

"if the tribunal had considered the issue in such terms, there is a real chance that it would have to reconsider some of its key findings".

This was important, for to succeed with such an application the applicant must show that its position on that issue was "reasonably arguable" and further that had the tribunal found in his favour, it might well have reached a different outcome in the award. The way that this was addressed by the court can be seen with the quantum claim. Here, Mr Justice Akenhead considered that the Home Office had clearly raised with the Tribunal that when calculating quantum relating to unjust enrichment, due account should be taken of the extent to which the costs incurred related to any delay, disruption and inefficiency which was the fault of Raytheon. The tribunal apparently failed to do this. The result of overlooking this "important issue" was that an award in the sum of £126 million was made against the Home Office.

These two issues were described as being "important and indeed critical". There had been a serious irregularity and the Home Office's application was made out. The Judge then had to consider what steps to take. Should the award be remitted or sent back to the original tribunal? The Judge noted that a court needs to consider all the circumstances relating to the dispute, the award, and the arbitrators themselves. What were the effects in terms of time and costs? What were the interests of justice as between the parties? Further, whilst the Judge noted that this was not a point based on prior authority, he did consider that the relative importance or seriousness of the established irregularities was a factor to be taken into account on the decision to set aside. The more serious the irregularity the more likely it is that setting aside may be appropriate.

The key question for the Judge was this:

"one needs to consider whether there is a real risk, judged objectively, that even a competent and respectable arbitral tribunal, whose acts or omissions have been held to amount to serious irregularity causing substantial injustice may sub-consciously be tempted to achieve the same result as before".

Taking everything into account, the Judge formed the view that this was a case where the award should be set aside in total and the matter resolved by a different arbitral tribunal. His reasons could be split into two parts:

(i) The nature of the irregularity and its effect on the tribunal:
  • Both grounds were towards the more serious end of the spectrum of seriousness in terms of irregularity.
  • The fact that the tribunal took some 16 months after final oral submissions to produce their award might lead a fairminded and informed observer to wonder (rightly or wrongly) at least whether (subconsciously) the tribunal was seeking some sort of shortcut.
  • It would be difficult for the tribunal to be required to set aside all its previous ideas. Therefore: "If, albeit conscientiously and competently, the tribunal in effect reached exactly the same conclusions as before, that might well lead to a strong belief objectively that justice had not been or not been seen to have been done."
(ii) It would not be necessary to rehear many of the issues decided in the first arbitration, and if these issues were reopened, the party doing so would do so at the risk of sanction on costs:
  • Much of the arbitration would not have to be reopened. On many of the individual issues on which each party lost, the Judge anticipated that the losing party would not seek to re-argue them. This would be because of the potential for a costs sanction. If a party which lost on a given factual or legal issue before the current tribunal argued it again and lost, the Judge made it clear that he would not be surprised if that led to an indemnity cost sanction, whatever the overall result.
  • Further, much of the factual evidence, adduced before the current tribunal, would be redeployed before the new tribunal and, if anything, it could be rationalised to reflect concessions made by witnesses in cross-examination before the current tribunal.
  • The experts, who are likely to have produced joint statements, were, in the view of the Judge, unlikely to change their views materially.

All of which meant that there would be no need for another 42-day hearing. Therefore, although most decisions are remitted to the original tribunal, here the Judge ordered that the dispute be referred back to a different tribunal.


The Judge also granted permission to appeal, and we will keep an eye on whether there is any news of an appeal.


1 [2015] EWHC 311 (TCC) and [2014] EWHC 4375 (TCC).

International Quarterly is produced quartely by Fenwick Elliott LLP, the leading specialist construction law firm in the UK, working with clients in the building, engineering and energy sectors throughout the world.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Jeremy Glover
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.