Arbitration Act 2010 Exam Past Paper Qs Flashcards
Before the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (‘the Act’) the Stated Case procedure provided a form of appeal from the decision of an arbiter on a point of law. The Act now provides a different, mandatory procedure for such an appeal from the decision of an arbitrator.
Discuss whether this statement is an accurate summary of the position under reference to the characteristics of the two procedures.
Position before the 2010 Act.
Before the Act, the Stated Case procedure allowed parties to appeal an arbiter’s decision on a point of law. The arbiter would state the facts and legal question in the form of a case, which would then be presented to the court for a decision. This procedure had several shortcomings:
1. It was time-consuming and costly as the arbiter was responsible for drafting the Stated Case, which often led to delays and increased costs.
2. There was a lack of clarity on the criteria for granting leave to appeal, resulting in inconsistency in the application of the Stated Case procedure.
3. The arbiter’s role in drafting the Stated Case could lead to a perceived lack of impartiality or independence.
Before the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (‘the Act’) the Stated Case procedure provided a form of appeal from the decision of an arbiter on a point of law. The Act now provides a different, mandatory procedure for such an appeal from the decision of an arbitrator.
Discuss whether this statement is an accurate summary of the position under reference to the characteristics of the two procedures.
Position after the 2010 Act.
The Act introduced a new mandatory procedure for appeals on points of law under Rule 69 (Default) and Rule 70 (Mandatory), which addressed the issues with the Stated Case procedure:
1. The new procedure allows parties to appeal directly to the Outer House of the Court of Session, streamlining the process and reducing delays.
2. The Outer House’s determination on an application for leave is final, providing clarity and consistency on the criteria for granting leave.
3. The new procedure removes the arbiter’s involvement in drafting the appeal, ensuring impartiality and independence.
