Plymouth v DR Jones (Yeovil) Ltd

Permission to appeal an arbitral award under Arbitration Act 1996, section 69, requires a properly identified question of law which substantially affects the parties’ rights, was determined by the tribunal, and satisfies the statutory threshold of obvious error or serious doubt on a question of general public importance. A decision within the permissible range of solutions is not an error of law. Findings of fact, including findings relevant to rectification and mutual mistake, cannot be recast as errors of law. An obvious error will ordinarily need to be demonstrable from the award itself. Contractual sectional completion dates require clear contractual words; a contractor’s programme does not, without more, impose such an obligation.

The Council sought permission under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to appeal four conclusions in an arbitrator’s first award concerning a building contract with D R Jones (Yeovil) Ltd. The issues concerned the date of contract formation, the documents incorporated, sectional completion dates and contractual working hours.

The arbitrator had found that the contract was formed on 26 January 2000, that the signed contract documents were exhaustive and required no rectification, that completion was due 39 weeks after 14 February 2000 without binding sectional dates, and that working hours were 8 am to 6 pm on weekdays. The central issue was whether the Council had shown an appealable error of law satisfying section 69.

1. Application dismissed. The Council failed to identify clear questions of law, and none of the alleged errors substantially affected the parties’ rights or was obviously wrong. The application had no real prospect of success.
2. Under section 69(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996, permission requires a question of law which substantially affects the rights of a party, was determined by the tribunal, and is either obviously wrong on the award’s findings of fact or raises a question of general public importance whose answer is at least seriously doubtful. It must also be just and proper for the court to intervene.
3. An arbitrator does not err in law merely by selecting one permissible solution among several. An alleged obvious error will normally have to appear on the face of the award. Criticisms of factual findings, including the rejection of mutual mistake and rectification, fall outside section 69.
4. The arbitrator was entitled to find that the contract was formed when the Council’s letter of 26 January 2000 accepted the revised tender and sent the contract documents for execution. The executed contract and its clause 2 list identified the incorporated documents. Inconsistencies between an original specification and later documents did not establish mutual mistake or require rectification where the documents could be read together.
5. Sectional completion obligations require a sectional completion agreement or other clear words imposing specific dates. A contractor’s programme, even if incorporated, does not by itself create such an obligation. The findings on working hours properly reflected the specification.
6. The Council was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed at £4,261.14, within 14 days.

The judgment concerns an application for permission to appeal from an arbitrator’s Award No. 1. No prior court decision is stated in the judgment.