Kevin Osler vs Marlene Osler, Dale Osler, and Jolene Osler

This case involved an appeal from the High Court concerning an arbitration award related to the valuation of partnership assets in a farming partnership between Kevin Osler and his late brother Roger Osler.

TLDR:

• Kevin Osler appealed an arbitration award regarding the valuation of partnership assets.
• The High Court had dismissed his application for permission to appeal.
• The Court of Appeal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed it.

The case arose from a dispute over the valuation of assets in a farming partnership between Kevin Osler and his late brother Roger Osler. Roger's estate, represented by his wife Marlene and children Dale and Jolene, was involved in the dispute after Roger's death in 2019.

Kevin exercised an option to purchase Roger's share of the partnership assets, but a disagreement emerged over whether the valuation should be based on historical cost or current market value. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Roger's estate, opting for a market value basis.

Kevin sought to appeal the arbitration award under s. 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. His application for permission to appeal was initially refused on paper by Joanna Smith J, and subsequently dismissed by HHJ Monty KC in the High Court. Kevin then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Before the Court of Appeal, the jurisdictional issue was raised regarding whether the Court had the authority to hear the appeal under s. 69(6) of the Arbitration Act. The Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction, as the leave of the High Court was required to appeal a decision under s. 69, which had been refused.

The Court of Appeal, therefore, dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. The decision emphasized the procedural requirements and limitations under the Arbitration Act for appealing arbitration awards.

The case underscores the importance of understanding the specific procedural rules governing arbitration appeals and the limited circumstances under which such appeals can be heard by higher courts.

Legal representatives: Mark Galtrey (instructed by Ebery Williams) for the Appellant, Dov Ohrenstein and Matthew Tonnard (instructed by Roy Thorne & Co Ltd) for the 1st and 3rd Respondents.

Judicial Panel: Lord Justice Popplewell, Lord Justice Nugee, and Mr Justice Cobb.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Civ 516