H v W

Arbitration awards are intended to be final. Section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996 permits correction of clerical mistakes, accidental slips or omissions, ambiguities, and certain additional awards. It does not permit an arbitrator to reconsider evidence, correct a mistaken assessment of fact or law, or improve an award by having second thoughts.

Intervention under section 68 is confined to the statutory grounds and requires substantial injustice. The threshold is exceptionally high. A court cannot vary an award under section 68; it may remit, set aside or declare it ineffective. Errors concerning the merits of an arbitrator’s factual assessment ordinarily fall outside section 68.

The parties had agreed to arbitrate financial issues arising from the end of their marriage. The arbitrator made a final award on 26 November 2018, including pension sharing and spousal maintenance of £500 per month for three years. Following H’s applications under section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the arbitrator amended the award on 3 February 2019, reducing maintenance to £300 per month.

H challenged the amended award under sections 68 and 69, arguing that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers, failed to deal with issues, and acted unfairly when reconsidering income and needs. W sought an order giving effect to the amended award. The central questions were whether the amendment was permitted by section 57 and whether any irregularity justified intervention under section 68.

H’s applications under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 were dismissed. The amended award was made an order of the court, with spousal maintenance adjusted to £300 per month. W was awarded her costs.

1. Section 69. H’s complaints concerned the arbitrator’s conduct of the arbitration and assessment of income and needs. They did not raise a question of law warranting permission to appeal. There was no basis for concluding that the arbitrator’s application of the law was obviously wrong or raised a question of general public importance.
2. Section 68. The grounds of challenge are closed and intervention requires both a statutory irregularity and substantial injustice. The test is reserved for extreme cases in which the arbitral process has departed so far from what could reasonably be expected that court intervention is required. A court exercising section 68 powers may remit, set aside or declare an award ineffective, but has no power to vary it.
3. Section 57. A final award is binding and the arbitrator is functus officio, subject only to the limited statutory correction powers. Section 57 does not allow second thoughts, reconsideration of evidence, correction of mistaken factual or legal assessments, the reopening of reasoning, or the introduction of fresh evidence. Whether an error falls within section 57 is an objective question.
4. The arbitrator’s February reconsideration went beyond correcting an accidental omission. It revisited the assessment of income and needs and supplied new reasoning. Even assuming a procedural irregularity in failing to invite further representations, the parties had already had a reasonable opportunity to address the relevant material and could not show substantial injustice or that a significantly different outcome might well have resulted.
5. Complaints about the merits of the arbitrator’s factual assessment did not constitute a serious irregularity under section 68. The amended award therefore remained effective and was made an order of the court.