CBI Constructors Pty Ltd v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 28

CBI Constructors Pty Ltd v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 28

By majority, the High Court held that the Supreme Court had power under s 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) to set aside an award if the tribunal was functus officio, and the standard of review was de novo (correctness), not substantial deference. However, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ dissented, holding that whether the First Interim Award precluded the tribunal from entertaining CKJV's Contract Criteria Case was within the tribunal's jurisdiction to decide.

Parties
Appellant: CBI Constructors Pty Ltd; Appellant: Kent Projects Pty Ltd; Respondent: Chevron Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs (majority); dissenting view that appeal should have been allowed and Second Interim Award reinstated
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Functus Officio, Standards of Review, Estoppel, Jurisdiction, UNCITRAL Model Law, Finality of Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Setting Aside Arbitral Award Functus Officio Standards of Review Estoppel Jurisdiction UNCITRAL Model Law +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CBI Constructors Pty Ltd

Appellant

Kent Projects Pty Ltd

Appellant

Chevron Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Supreme Court of Western Australia have power under s 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) to set aside the Second Interim Award?
  2. 2 Is the standard of court review under s 34(2)(a)(iii) de novo or subject to deference to the arbitral tribunal?
  3. 3 Did the arbitral tribunal become functus officio after the First Interim Award on liability, precluding further determination on Contract Criteria Case?

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the High Court held that the Supreme Court had power under s 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) to set aside an award if the tribunal was functus officio, and the standard of review was de novo (correctness), not substantial deference. However, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ dissented, holding that whether the First Interim Award precluded the tribunal from entertaining CKJV's Contract Criteria Case was within the tribunal's jurisdiction to decide.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs (majority); dissenting view that appeal should have been allowed and Second Interim Award reinstated

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs