Exxon Coal v Chadtech [1999] NSWSC 574

Exxon Coal v Chadtech [1999] NSWSC 574

Exxon was not denied procedural fairness because, on the pleadings, evidence, statements of issues and submissions, it had a reasonable opportunity to deal with the matters later determined by the arbitrator and ought reasonably to have apprehended that they were live issues. Leave to appeal was refused because Exxon did not establish any manifest error of law on the face of the award, did not show strong evidence of legal error, and did not show that determination of the proposed questions would add substantially to the certainty of commercial law; several issues involved factual findings or, at most, arguable contractual construction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside an Arbitration Award Pursuant to S 42 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (nsw), Alternatively for Leave to Appeal From the Award Pursuant to S 38(4)(b) / Judgment on Summons
Outcome
Exxon's claims under s 42 were rejected and leave to appeal under s 38(4)(b) was refused; short minutes of order were directed to be brought in.
Legal Topics
['misconduct of Arbitrator' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal From Arbitral Award' 'manifest Error of Law on the Face of the Award' 'construction Contract Delay Claims' 'directed Deviations' 'extensions of Time' 'notice Provisions']
['administrative Law' 'arbitration' 'construction Law'] ['misconduct of Arbitrator' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal From Arbitral Award' 'manifest Error of Law on the Face of the Award' 'construction Contract Delay Claims' 'directed Deviations' 'extensions of Time' 'notice Provisions']

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 to Set Aside an Arbitration Award Pursuant to S 42 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (nsw), Alternatively for Leave to Appeal From the Award Pursuant to S 38(4)(b) / Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the arbitrator misconducted the proceedings by deciding matters not the subject of any claim or submission by Chadtech.' 'Whether Exxon was denied procedural fairness in relation to findings about directed deviations under clause 29(b), extensions of time under clause 31(e), and notice under clause 47.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 38(4)(b) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW).' 'Whether there was a manifest error of law on the face of the award or strong evidence of error of law likely to add substantially to the certainty of commercial law.']

Ratio Decidendi

Exxon was not denied procedural fairness because, on the pleadings, evidence, statements of issues and submissions, it had a reasonable opportunity to deal with the matters later determined by the arbitrator and ought reasonably to have apprehended that they were live issues. Leave to appeal was refused because Exxon did not establish any manifest error of law on the face of the award, did not show strong evidence of legal error, and did not show that determination of the proposed questions would add substantially to the certainty of commercial law; several issues involved factual findings or, at most, arguable contractual construction.

Court Disposition

Exxon's claims under s 42 were rejected and leave to appeal under s 38(4)(b) was refused; short minutes of order were directed to be brought in.

Orders

  • ['Short minutes of order be brought in.' 'Costs may be argued.']