CIMA rules - Price & anr v Carter (t/a Ian Carter Building Contractors)
By natalie • Jul 26th, 2010 • Category: Arbitration, Arbitration Cases, Arbitration News, International Arbitration
United Kingdom
July 6 2010
The CIMA arbitration rules are the default rules under the JCT Standard Forms. In the case here, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart faced a challenge to an arbitrator’s award under sections 67 (lack of jurisdiction), 68 (serious irregularity) and 69 (error of law) of the 1996 Arbitration Act. It was suggested that the Notice of Arbitration did not comply with rule 2.1 of the CIMA Rules because it did not require Price to agree to the appointment of an arbitrator. The Judge disagreed. What the Rules require is for the party serving the Notice to name anyone they propose as arbitrator (either in the Notice or separately). In the Notice they may also, although not required by the Rules, invite the other party to respond and propose any other names.
The arbitrator notified the parties that he intended to appoint a surveyor as an assessor to address the conflicting evidence on valuation. The Judge said that this fell within the power given to him by s 37 of the 1996 Act to appoint an assessor. That said, the clause does require that where this is done, the parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on any advice offered by the surveyor. Rule 4.2 of the CIMA Rules, whilst giving the arbitrator the power to appoint an assessor, does not make specific provision for the parties to comment on any report that might be produced. The Judge noted that the overriding duty on an arbitrator to act fairly as between the parties, imposed by section 33 of the Act, “probably” required an arbitrator appointed under the CIMA Rules to give the parties some opportunity to comment.
Here, as it happened, there had not been a serious irregularity. For example, Price put forward no evidence to show what they would have done if they had been permitted to comment on the report.
