Background
STN, a professional footballer, and POR, his agent, arbitrated disputes under Rule K of the Football Association Rules. POR sought approximately £110,000 in unpaid commission relating to STN’s 2022 transfer from Club 1 to Club 2. STN denied liability and counterclaimed for alleged breaches of contract and fiduciary duty arising from other transfers.
The sole arbitrator upheld POR’s claim and dismissed STN’s counterclaim in a partial final award dated 15 April 2025. STN challenged the award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, alleging four serious irregularities: failure to decide a counterclaim concerning Club 1’s alleged overpayment of a transfer fee; improper reliance on unpleaded reasoning and private knowledge concerning a mandate with a Turkish agent; unfair handling of an alleged payment by Club 4; and inadequate treatment of a witness’s evidence.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Butcher held that the arbitrator failed to decide the separately pleaded limb of STN’s counterclaim alleging that POR permitted Club 1 to pay £100,000 more than the applicable buyout clause, thereby reducing the budget available for STN’s wages. Although the award identified that claim, its substantive analysis addressed only a different allegation concerning secret commission paid by Club 3. The unexplained statement dismissing the “second limb” did not establish that the overpayment claim had actually been considered.
That omission constituted a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d) and caused substantial injustice because the result might well have differed had the claim been addressed. The court also held that Rule K 10.2 excluded recourse to the arbitrator under section 57, so STN’s challenge was not barred by failure to pursue that procedure. Rather than setting aside the award, the court remitted the overlooked counterclaim to the same arbitrator for reconsideration, including whether its resolution affects the award’s overall conclusion.
The court rejected the remaining grounds. The mandate issue had been sufficiently raised in POR’s case, and the arbitrator permissibly used his experience to evaluate the evidence. The alleged Club 4 payment was neither pleaded nor otherwise clearly submitted as an issue requiring determination, and STN had not sought amendment or further disclosure during the arbitration. The arbitrator’s assessment that Ms XX’s evidence was largely contextual also disclosed no serious irregularity.
Key Takeaways
- An award may suffer serious irregularity where it identifies a distinct pleaded claim but leaves the parties to guess whether that claim was actually decided.
- Under the applicable FA Rule K wording, the parties had excluded section 57 correction or additional-award recourse, leaving a section 68 challenge available without first pursuing that procedure.
- Remission to the original arbitrator, rather than setting aside the award, was the appropriate remedy for the omitted issue.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates both the high threshold for challenging an English arbitration award and the distinction between an omitted issue and allegedly flawed reasoning. Courts will not revisit an arbitrator’s factual evaluation or legal conclusions under section 68, but they may intervene when a separately pleaded and potentially outcome-affecting claim was not decided at all.
It also highlights the significance of institutional or contractual arbitration rules when determining whether section 57 recourse was available and therefore had to be exhausted before a court challenge.