Tuta Products Pty Ltd v Hutcherson Bros Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 4

Tuta Products Pty Ltd v Hutcherson Bros Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 4

A proposition of law appeared on the face of the award; the Supreme Court's answers and reasoning were incorporated therein. The arbitrators' award made in conformity with the Supreme Court's opinion was open to examination for error of law. The High Court found error of law in the award as regards the claims for losses and expenses relating to the sewer line delay, as cl. 9 of the contract did not apply. Good parts of the award were severable from bad; the erroneous matters (claims for delay and maintenance of sewer) were ordered to be remitted to the arbitrators for reconsideration, rather than setting aside the entire award.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Division, New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders of lower courts set aside; matters relating to the sewer line claims and costs remitted to arbitrators for reconsideration in accordance with High Court reasons.
Legal Topics
['arbitration Awards' 'error of Law on the Face of Award' 'remission to Arbitrators' 'construction Contracts']
['construction Law' 'arbitration Law'] ['arbitration Awards' 'error of Law on the Face of Award' 'remission to Arbitrators' 'construction Contracts']

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

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Division, New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a proposition of law appeared on the face of the arbitral award and, if erroneous, warrants setting aside the award.' 'Entitlement to payment for increased costs under a rise and fall clause in a sub-contract for lift installation.' 'Entitlement to interest under clauses of construction contract for delayed payment or certificate issuance.' 'Entitlement to additional costs for delay in sewer diversion under the contract and specification.']

Ratio Decidendi

A proposition of law appeared on the face of the award; the Supreme Court's answers and reasoning were incorporated therein. The arbitrators' award made in conformity with the Supreme Court's opinion was open to examination for error of law. The High Court found error of law in the award as regards the claims for losses and expenses relating to the sewer line delay, as cl. 9 of the contract did not apply. Good parts of the award were severable from bad; the erroneous matters (claims for delay and maintenance of sewer) were ordered to be remitted to the arbitrators for reconsideration, rather than setting aside the entire award.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders of lower courts set aside; matters relating to the sewer line claims and costs remitted to arbitrators for reconsideration in accordance with High Court reasons.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal Division set aside.' "Appeal to that court allowed; Isaacs J.'s order set aside." 'Award of arbitrators set aside to the extent of findings that respondent was entitled to $15,662 as expenses for delay (sewer preservation) and $2,649.98 for maintaining...