Sunvara Pty Ltd v John Thomas Williams [2001] NSWSC 433

Sunvara Pty Ltd v John Thomas Williams [2001] NSWSC 433

Leave to appeal was refused because the Arbitrator identified and applied the correct Bellgrove/Ruxley test, considered whether reinstatement was necessary and reasonable from several factual vantage points, and the plaintiff failed to establish any manifest error of law on the face of the award or any basis under section 38(5) of the Commercial Arbitration Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Interim Arbitration Award / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interim Award' 'manifest Error of Law on the Face of the Award' 'measure of Damages for Breach of Building Contract' 'rectification Damages' 'solatium']
['commercial Arbitration' 'contract Law' 'construction Law' 'damages'] ['leave to Appeal From Interim Award' 'manifest Error of Law on the Face of the Award' 'measure of Damages for Breach of Building Contract' 'rectification Damages' 'solatium']

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 Interim Arbitration Award / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Arbitrator applied an incorrect test in deciding that replacement of painted plasterboard finish with painted cement render was a reasonable course to adopt.' 'Whether there was a manifest error of law on the face of the second interim award for the purposes of section 38(5) of the Commercial Arbitration Act.' 'Whether determination of the question may add, or may be likely to add, substantially to the certainty of commercial law.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Arbitrator identified and applied the correct Bellgrove/Ruxley test, considered whether reinstatement was necessary and reasonable from several factual vantage points, and the plaintiff failed to establish any manifest error of law on the face of the award or any basis under section 38(5) of the Commercial Arbitration Act.

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of proceedings 55037/00." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of proceedings 55050/00." 'The summons in proceedings 55037/00 is dismissed.' 'The summons in proceedings 55050/00 is dismissed.']