Amec Australia v Pacific Power [1999] NSWSC 531

Amec Australia v Pacific Power [1999] NSWSC 531

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court was not satisfied that paragraph 9.38 of the award disclosed a manifest error of law, that there was strong evidence of error, or that determination of Amec's question would add substantially to the certainty of commercial law. In all the circumstances, including the way the point arose in the arbitration, the factual context of Dewar's memorandum, the continuing contractual variation power, and the limited significance of the impugned finding to the ultimate award, the Court declined to exercise discretion to grant leave under s 38.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Arbitral Award Under S 38 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 / Leave to Appeal From Interim Award Dated 5 February 1999
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Arbitral Award' 'manifest Error of Law on the Face of an Award' 'strong Evidence of Error of Law' 'construction of as 2124 1986 Clause 44' 'repudiation' 'quantum Meruit']
['commercial Arbitration' 'construction Law' 'contract Law'] ['leave to Appeal From Arbitral Award' 'manifest Error of Law on the Face of an Award' 'strong Evidence of Error of Law' 'construction of as 2124 1986 Clause 44' 'repudiation' 'quantum Meruit']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From an Arbitral Award Under S 38 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 / Leave to Appeal From Interim Award Dated 5 February 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 38 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 to appeal from the interim arbitral award.' 'Whether the arbitrator made a manifest error of law on the face of the award or whether there was strong evidence of an error of law.' 'Whether, under AS 2124-1986 clause 44, a principal who takes work out of the hands of a contractor is obliged to complete all of that work.' 'Whether a decision or intention not to complete all of the works before giving a clause 44.4 notice would invalidate the exercise of the clause 44.4 power.' 'Whether determination of the question raised by Amec may add substantially to the certainty of commercial law.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court was not satisfied that paragraph 9.38 of the award disclosed a manifest error of law, that there was strong evidence of error, or that determination of Amec's question would add substantially to the certainty of commercial law. In all the circumstances, including the way the point arose in the arbitration, the factual context of Dewar's memorandum, the continuing contractual variation power, and the limited significance of the impugned finding to the ultimate award, the Court declined to exercise discretion to grant leave under s 38.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the summons."]