Challenging an Arbitration Award: When “Serious Irregularity” Isn’t Enough
📂 Case Details
Case Title: MHA Advisory Ltd v Wynter
Citation: [2025] EWHC 2497 (Comm)
Court: High Court of Justice (Commercial Court, Queen’s Bench Division)
Judge: Mr Justice Paul Mitchell KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Date: 2025
Legal Area: Arbitration – Serious Irregularity (Section 68, Arbitration Act 1996)
Parties:
Claimant: MHA Advisory Ltd
Defendant: Mr Wynter
⚖️ Background of the Dispute
The case arose from a dispute over restrictive covenants contained in a partnership agreement. An arbitrator dismissed MHA Advisory’s claim, concluding that the restrictive terms were unreasonable in duration and scope.
Unhappy with the decision, MHA Advisory applied to the High Court to set aside the arbitral award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, arguing that the arbitrator had failed to address important evidence and therefore committed a serious irregularity.
The application was based on claims that the arbitrator had not properly engaged with submissions concerning the commercial justification for the restrictions, thus breaching his duty under section 33 of the Act to conduct proceedings fairly and impartially.
🔍 The Legal Question
The central question before the court was:
Did the arbitrator commit a “serious irregularity” under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to consider crucial evidence, and if so, should the award be set aside?
This raised two fundamental points:
How strictly should English courts interpret serious irregularity under section 68?
Whether the claimant should first have sought clarification or correction of the award under section 57 before turning to the court.
🧑⚖️ The Court’s Ruling
Mr Justice Mitchell KC dismissed the application. He held that:
The arbitrator had considered the relevant evidence and reached a reasoned decision within his discretion.
The claimant’s complaint was not about procedural unfairness, but disagreement with the arbitrator’s evaluation — which is not a valid ground under section 68.
Before applying to set aside an award, a party should seek clarification under section 57 if it believes the arbitrator overlooked an issue.
Section 68 is intended as a “long stop” remedy, not a tool to re-argue the merits of a case.
💬 Significance of the Decision
This decision reinforces the pro-arbitration stance of the English courts and the finality of arbitral awards. It highlights that:
Serious irregularity under section 68 is a high threshold, limited to extreme cases of procedural unfairness.
The courts will not revisit factual findings or interpretations made by arbitrators.
Parties must exhaust arbitral remedies—such as requests for clarification—before seeking judicial intervention.
💼 What Businesses Should Know
For companies engaged in or preparing for arbitration:
The English courts maintain a very narrow scope for interfering with arbitral awards.
Section 68 challenges rarely succeed, except where a clear procedural injustice occurred.
Always consider using section 57 to request clarification from the tribunal before involving the courts.
Finality and efficiency remain core strengths of arbitration under English law.