Functus officio revisited: arbitral correction decisions as evidence in section 68 AA 1996 challenges (Seacrest v BCP)

Arbitration analysis: What is the status of an arbitral tribunal’s decision refusing to correct an award? The court considered this question in the context of an application to set aside an award on grounds of serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The claimant, Seacrest Group Ltd (‘Seacrest’), argued that the tribunal had infringed due process in its award in an arbitration between Seacrest and the defendants, BCPR PTE Ltd and Bangchak Corporation Public Company Ltd (together ‘BCP’), by failing to address a submission made by Seacrest for the first time in its written closing—and had then erred again in refusing to correct this aspect of the award.

To read more, follow the link (this article is behind a paywall).

Share this