Report comment

But isn't the point that Arbitration is more usefully employed in cases where the result mainly turns on the facts, and does not hinge on legal analysis? The Arbitrator is usually appointed based on their expertise in a particular sector, not because of their expertise in common law.

The Court still gets involved where it has to, either by way of application to determine a preliminary point of law under s.45 AA 1996, or on appeal under s.69.

Agreeing to limit or exclude these section is really not too different to settling a case that has come before the Court, it's about the parties taking control of their own destiny. By extension of the argument, one could frown upon out of court settlements arguing that they too stifle development of the law, but would we start forcing people to litigate even where they don't want to?