HMV UK v. Propinvest Limited Partnership 
EWCA Civ 1708
The court usually may only give leave for an appeal against an
award of a rent review arbitrator if, on a question of law, the
decision is "obviously wrong" (Arbitration Act
1996,s.69(3)(c)(i)). Such an error of law should, by its nature, be
readily identifiable on a reading of the papers, but the history
revealed in HMV UK v. Propinvest Limited Partnership
 EWCA Civ 1708 suggests that experienced
Chancery judges do not always find it easy to recognise what is, or
is not, obvious in the rent review context.
In this case, there was an application for leave to appeal
against an award made in July2010. In December 2010, one chancery
judge on consideration of the papers, directed an oral hearing of
the application (to be heard together with the appeal, if leave was
granted). In April 2011, another chancery judge refused the
application for leave, after an oral hearing, but granted
permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In November 2011,the
Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal.
As Longmore LJ said (para. 44): "this case is not
therefore a particularly good advertisement for the arbitration
process". There was no "comparatively speedy
process giving rise to finality". The rent review was
delayed for well over a year by use of court procedures, and this
is not in accordance with the policy of the Act. The judges of the
chancery division are well able to act robustly where required and
I suggest that it should only be in exceptional cases that the
identification of an obvious error should require oral
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The recent Scottish appeal court decision in the case of Chalmers v Chalmers concerned an appeal by a mother who was asking the court for a judgment reducing a disposition in favour of her estranged son that transferred ownership of a flat to him.
A mother came across the scene of a car accident, and later discovered the accident involved her son. Could she recover damages for nervous shock as a "secondary victim", significantly inflating her award?
When it is alleged that a party has obtained information or documents by illegal or fraudulent means, difficult questions often arise: (1) Can (or should) that information be used in Court proceedings?; (2) Are there effective sanctions and penalties for a party that obtains evidence illegally?
Many statements can be made in the course of trying to win work and there can be a temptation to overstate facts. Whether this could result in a misrepresentation is explained below together with the possible consequences.