May 15, 2026
The High Court has handed down judgment in Asghar v Patel [2026] EWHC 396 (Comm), a rare example of a successful appeal on a point of law under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
The underlying arbitration concerned a claim by Dr Patel against Dr Asgar under an agreement relating to retirement from a GP partnership. The agreement, which was made orally but subsequently reduced to writing, contained a term that Dr Patel would be paid £60,000 for her share in a surgery building. Dr Patel commenced arbitral proceedings (the relevant partnership agreement containing an arbitration clause) seeking payment of the £60,000, despite her share in the surgery building never having been transferred. The Tribunal found for Dr Patel, deciding that the payment and transfer obligations were independent of one another. Dr Asghar sought permission to appeal under s.69 of 1996 Act on the basis that the Tribunal’s approach to construing the agreement was obviously wrong, and was granted permission by HHJ Pelling KC.
The substantive appeal was heard by HHJ Bird (sitting as a High Court Judge), who allowed the appeal on the basis that, having found that the relevant agreement had been reduced to writing, the Tribunal had erred in taking into consideration irrelevant matters such as the parties’ subsequent conduct and evidence as to their subjective intentions, and erred in its construction of the agreement. The Judge held that the “plain” construction of the agreement was that the payment and transfer obligations were dependent obligations.
James Knott acted for the successful appellant, Dr Asghar, instructed by Charlie Shillito of Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.
Read the judgment.
