The underlying dispute arose from a contract dated 2 July 2014, under which B (“the Sellers”) agreed to sell and A (“the Buyers”) agreed to buy a quantity of fertiliser. The contract, governed by English law, specified that the Product to be sold and purchased was “Magnesium Sulphate Heptahydrate in bulk (‘Epsomite 98’)”. The quantity was specified as 4,500mt +/- 5% in Sellers’ option at €135/mt CIF one safe port, one safe berth Varna, Bulgaria or Constanta, Romania, at Buyers’ option. Having made prepayments and after the discharge of the cargo, the Buyers complained about the quality of the goods and asked the Sellers to take the product back and reimburse them. The Sellers declined.

Three arbitrators produced a Partial Award dated 21 June 2016 holding inter alia that: the Buyers lost the right to reject the cargo but have not lost the right to claim damages for breach of specifications; the assessment of damages, if any, was held over for further submissions and a further award, if the parties were unable to agree. On 18 July 2016, the Buyers made an application under the Arbitration Act 1996, s.57 for the correction of certain paragraphs in the Partial Award, and/or for the clarification or removal of ambiguities therein. On or about 12 September 2016, two of the three arbitrators provided a response to this application, and made a limited change to the terms of one paragraph of the Partial Award. The third arbitrator thereafter provided certain comments on this response, indicating these to be “the minority view”. The Buyers applied under the Arbitration Act 1996, s.68 to challenge the Partial Award of the three arbitrators dated 21 June 2016.

Decision: The Arbitration Act 1996, s.68 application dismissed.

Held: (1) There is a “high threshold” to be satisfied for a s.68 challenge to succeed. (2) The focus under s.68 is due process, not the correctness of the decision; (3) As a matter of general approach, the courts do not look at arbitration awards with a predisposition to find faults in them. (4) The Arbitration Act, ss 33 and 34 gives arbitrators a broad discretion in matters of procedure and evidence; assessments by the tribunal of the evidence before it, and whether to give it what, if any, weight are ones in which the court will seldom, if