Schwebel v Wolf Schwebel

An English court has no jurisdiction under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to hear an appeal on a question of foreign law applied by the arbitral tribunal. Section 68 provides a high-threshold, exceptional challenge to arbitral procedure or the award. It does not permit a losing party to appeal factual findings, challenge the weight given to evidence, or require the tribunal to address every item of evidence. A failure to deal with evidence constitutes serious irregularity only where it falls within the statutory categories and causes, or will cause, substantial injustice.

The claimant and defendant, brothers, agreed to refer disputes concerning family properties to the Beth Din. Their arbitration agreement required the tribunal to decide the dispute under Jewish law. The Beth Din awarded the claimant a one-sixth interest in one property and rejected his wider trust claims.

The claimant sought permission to appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and challenged the award under section 68, alleging errors of law, failure to consider evidence, procedural unfairness and conduct contrary to public policy. He also sought an adjournment to examine the hearing transcript.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant’s claim was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the costs of and occasioned by the claim and hearings.
2. Section 69 permits an appeal only on a question of English law. The Beth Din was required by the arbitration agreement to apply Jewish law. Whether its conclusions were correct under Jewish law was therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction. The fact that the alleged error appeared on the face of the award did not convert it into a question of English law. The court left open the position where parties expressly agree to an appeal on foreign law.
3. Section 68 is a long-stop remedy. It requires a serious irregularity within the closed statutory categories and substantial injustice. It does not provide an appeal on the merits or permit review of factual findings. The tribunal need not address every argument or item of evidence, and the weight given to evidence is not itself an issue for section 68 purposes.
4. The Beth Din dealt with the essential issues, conducted the proceedings fairly and acted within its jurisdiction. Its conclusion that there was no admissible evidence, apart from the Cross Street evidence, showing beneficial ownership by the deceased was open to it. The tribunal’s rejection of some evidence, or its failure to explain the weight given to individual items, did not establish serious irregularity or substantial injustice.
5. The allegations that the award was procured by fraud or was contrary to public policy were unsupported. The claimant had failed to prove any irregularity, injustice or fraud.
6. The adjournment was refused. The proceedings were already stale, the transcript had been available for sufficient time, and further examination was speculative and could not establish a question of law from the award.

Not stated in the judgment.