http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2018/2833.html

One of the issues in this case, which the judge did not need to decide in the end, was whether, if an award has to be set aside for serious irregularity by the tribunal and the claim has to be determined afresh, section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ("the Act") empowers a court to replace the arbitral tribunal.

Baker J acknowledged that the issue of whether there is a power to remove under section 68, or only under section 24 of the Act, is an important question of principle which prior caselaw does not seem to have determined. He held that, had he had to consider the point, he would have concluded that "s.68 does not empower the court to remove an arbitral tribunal, that being reserved to s.24, and that a direction purportedly pursuant to s.68, as part of setting aside an award, in whole or part, that matters thus requiring fresh determination should go to a new tribunal, would amount to removal of the original tribunal and so would require a s.24 claim".