In a decision involving RTI and Rusal, the court refused to entertain a challenge brought under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, siding with the respondent, OWH, which had argued the case was both out of time and without merit.
RTI and Rusal had alleged that the arbitration award was affected by “serious irregularities,” citing multiple grounds under the statute. They also sought permission to proceed despite missing the law’s 28-day deadline for filing such challenges.
But the court was unpersuaded.
In its ruling, it declined to extend the filing deadline and summarily dismissed the application, emphasizing that exceptions to the statutory time limit are granted only in rare and compelling circumstances. The judge found that the claimants failed to meet that threshold.
Legal analysts say the decision underscores the English courts’ longstanding pro-arbitration stance, particularly the importance placed on finality. Section 68 challenges—designed as a safeguard against serious procedural injustice—are notoriously difficult to win and are not intended to provide a backdoor appeal.
The judgment also highlights the evidential burden on parties alleging irregularity. Courts require clear and convincing proof that any procedural misstep caused substantial injustice, not merely dissatisfaction with the outcome.
By rejecting both the substance of the claims and the request for more time, the ruling sends a strong signal: parties who wish to challenge arbitration awards must act quickly—and come prepared with compelling evidence.
For businesses relying on arbitration to resolve disputes, the message is clear. The courts will enforce deadlines strictly and intervene only in exceptional cases, reinforcing arbitration’s role as a final, binding method of dispute resolution.