Arbitration Law Monthly

It has for many years been the practice for arbitration clauses in insurance policies to draw a distinction between quantum disputes (which are to be arbitrated) and liability disputes (which are to go to court). In one sense every dispute under an insurance policy is a quantum dispute, in that it inevitably affects how much - if anything - will ultimately be paid by the insurers. In DC Bars Ltd and Another v QIC Europe Ltd [2023] EWHC 245 (Comm) Sir Nigel Teare has held, in effect, that quantum disputes are concerned purely with calculation of sums owing on the basis that there is liability. This ensures that substantive issues are resolved in public, and only the maths is behind closed doors.

The decision of Andrew Baker J EGF v HVF and Others [2022] EWHC 2470 (Comm) discussed two distinct allegations of breach of duty by the tribunal: its handling of evidence of fraud, giving rise to an allegation of potential bias; and its decision to make an interim payments order in the form of an award.

In Briggs Marine Contractors Ltd v Bakkafrost Scotland Ltd [2023] ScotCS CSOH_6, a decision of Lord Braid in the Outer House of the Court of Session, the question was whether an arbitration clause in a written contract continued to apply to a dispute under an alleged replacement contract so as to justify a stay of proceedings brought on the replacement contract. Although the case was heard in Scotland, the relevant contracts were governed by English law.

Henshaw J in a lengthy and comprehensive judgment in Hays v Bloomfield Investments LLC [2022] EWHC 1648 (Comm) has considered the circumstances in which a failure to bring an appeal against an arbitration award within the 28 days permitted by section 70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 should be excused by the grant of an extension of time under section 80(5).