Recent case law shows that challenging an arbitrator's award because of serious irregularity is no easy option. There are limited grounds upon which a challenge can be made. Even if a case falls within one of them, a party will only succeed in its challenge if it can show that it has suffered a substantial injustice. A technical breach will not suffice. Cases which, under the Arbitration Act 1950, would have been remitted back to the arbitrator because of technical misconduct, will now not be remitted because they either do not fall within the limited grounds or because they have not caused substantial injustice. Over three years have elapsed since the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) came into force and there is still little case law on the subject of serious irregularity. Most cases in which it has been alleged have had it as an alternative to either a breach of substantive jurisdiction or an appeal on a point of law. If one of the aims of AA 1996 was to restrict the intervention of the courts in dealing with arbitration proceedings, this lack of case law illustrates an unqualified success. Challenges for serious irregularity must be made within 28 days of the date of the award. The lack of case law therefore can only be explained on the basis that parties do not believe they can overcome the hurdles involved with making a challenge.