Changes

'''On the true construction of the arbitration agreement, the terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties did not provide for appeals to be made to the court on questions of fact. In Further, the Court thought it very doubtful in any event, that it was neither permissible under the Arbitration Act 1996 nor by agreement of the parties for appeals had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from arbitrators on questions of fact to be made to the court (though it was not strictly necessary to decide the latter point given the conclusion on the true construction of the arbitration agreement)'''

 Counsel for the dockyard dockyard also put forward an alternative jurisdictional argument, based on the structure and terms of Article 22 of the contract. The argument was directed to invoking the court’s original jurisdiction on an inherent basis. It was to the effect that an appeal on the facts was not expressly prohibited by the 1996 Act, was consistent (where the parties had agreed to it) with party autonomy, and fell within the court’s inherent jurisdiction, just like a claim for breach of contract. In other words, the appeal to the court was essentially contractual in nature and therefore part of the arbitration process, rather than an “intervention” (see s.1(c) of the 1996 Act) in the process by the court.