You should answer this examination on the basis of the Arbitration Act 1996 and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

By a Contract between GOATEE Ltd ("the Claimant") and Millers  Manufacturers Ltd ("the Respondent"), the Claimant undertook the construction of a new single-storey factory together with an attached two-storey office block ("the Works"). The said Contract was in the Respondent's own form of Contract FMM/2 ("the Contract"). The Claimant carried out and completed the Works. During the construction period and following Practical Completion the Claimant submitted various claims for additional work and additional costs of delay, and eventually commenced arbitration in accordance with an arbitration clause within the Contract. The arbitration was commenced and the arbitrator issued a Final Award. Advise the Respondent in the following cases with reference to the Arbitration Act 1996 ("the Act") where applicable following the Final Award.

(a). The Arbitrator had awarded two particular figures but in the summary he had added them up incorrectly so that the amounts ordered to be paid by the Respondent were higher than it should have been. Furthermore, the Respondent had informed the Arbitrator that the previous payment was £20,000 but had forgotten to inform the Arbitrator that there was subsequently a further payment of £2,000. Finally, the parties asked the Arbitrator to reserve costs, but he had obviously misunderstood as he made no order for costs and issued his award as a Final Award (10 marks).

 

 

(b). The Respondent explained that during the hearing he had made a submission to the Arbitrator that he had no jurisdiction as he had been appointed by the wrong appointing body. In his Final Award the Arbitrator mentioned this but simply said that the Respondent should have brought this to his attention earlier on. Explain in detail what recourse if any the Respondent has. (10 marks)

 

c). The Respondent had a counterclaim as a Computerised Building Management System installed by the Claimant was not operating properly, but in the Final Award the Arbitrator said that he did not consider himself sufficiently qualified to decide on such a technical counterclaim, and therefore he declined to make any award in relation to it. (10 marks)

 

(d). The Contract was the Respondent's own form of Contract and the contract price was set to be £2,000.00 plus 10% contingency fee. The Arbitrator awarded that the Claimant was entitled to the 10% addition as of right, but the Respondent's case was that the 10% was only to be used for contingencies, and if not so used was to be omitted. The Respondent has pointed out that the interpretation of the contract is a matter of law, and therefore he wishes to appeal that point of law. (10 marks).