Elspan v Eurocopter [1999] NSWSC 555

Elspan v Eurocopter [1999] NSWSC 555

Elspan failed to establish that any relevant misconduct, procedural unfairness, or manifest error of law occurred in the arbitration. The arbitrator's credit findings were justified given the context, and the rule in Browne v Dunn does not require express challenge where the witness and counsel are on notice of contestation. All challenged factual findings were reasoned and based on evidence, and delay did not prejudice Elspan. No grounds for setting aside portions of the award or granting leave to appeal were made out.

Parties
Plaintiff: Elspan International Limited; First Defendant: Eurocopter International Pacific Limited; Second Defendant (arbitrator): Geoffrey A. Markham
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application Under Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (nsw) Regarding Arbitral Award / Judgment on Challenges to Arbitration Award and Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Topics
Arbitral Misconduct, Leave to Appeal Arbitration Award, Error of Law, Procedural Fairness, Quantum Meruit, Interest Awards, Contract Repudiation, Costs in Arbitration
Administrative Law Arbitration Commercial Law Arbitral Misconduct Leave to Appeal Arbitration Award Error of Law Procedural Fairness Quantum Meruit +3 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elspan International Limited

Plaintiff

Eurocopter International Pacific Limited

First Defendant

Geoffrey A. Markham

Second Defendant (arbitrator)

Procedural Posture

Application Under Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (nsw) Regarding Arbitral Award / Judgment on Challenges to Arbitration Award and Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed legal or technical misconduct under s42 of the Act
  2. 2 Whether there was manifest error of law on the face of the arbitration award
  3. 3 Whether certain credit findings prejudiced Elspan

Ratio Decidendi

Elspan failed to establish that any relevant misconduct, procedural unfairness, or manifest error of law occurred in the arbitration. The arbitrator's credit findings were justified given the context, and the rule in Browne v Dunn does not require express challenge where the witness and counsel are on notice of contestation. All challenged factual findings were reasoned and based on evidence, and delay did not prejudice Elspan. No grounds for setting aside portions of the award or granting leave to appeal were made out.