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 English court has recently clarified the principles of the duty to mitigate loss. The decision in Thai Airways International plc v KI Holdings Co Ltd  EWHC 1250 (Comm) highlights why an innocent party should carefully consider their options when faced with another party's breach of contract.
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.
Most legal contracts contain standard "boiler
plate" clauses buried at the end, one of which says
something about choice of law and jurisdiction. Few clients
attach much importance to it. The reason for this may be
because contracting parties, on the threshold of a new life
together, do not want to spoil the wedding day by squabbling
over the terms of a pre-nup. The problem is, however, that the
consequences of the wrong choice, or no choice, can be quite