9 Jul 2024
The Court exercised its discretion under section 37(7), found the Defendant did not justify an order for security because there was no proven prejudice or risk of dissipation and the Plaintiff's financial statements showed the Plaintiff was solvent; accordingly the application for security (Enclosure 12) was dismissed with costs.
18 Aug 2021
The court set aside the CIETAC award because Hotel Sentral was not duly and properly notified of the arbitration (s.37(1)(a)(iii)) and enforcement would offend the public policy of finality given the award had been previously set aside and that decision affirmed (res judicata / s.37(1)(b)(ii)); the defendant's unsworn explanations were insufficient to rebut those findings.
27 Aug 2020
The Federal Court held that (1) section 21(3)(b) permits an expert arbitrator to draw on his own knowledge and expertise without necessarily notifying parties, absent unreasonable surprise or prejudice; (2) the Court of Appeal and High Court erred in setting aside the loss of profit and completed works awards because no material breach of natural justice was shown and the arbitrator's findings were factual within his remit; (3) the section 37 threshold remains low relative to section 42 but the court must still exercise discretion; and (4) valuation of completed works was a question of fact,…
14 May 2020
The Originating Summons is dismissed because DBP failed to establish any valid ground under s.37 (no proven breach of natural justice or public policy and no separable 'new difference' beyond the submission), and the s.42 questions either raised mixed fact and law or required acceptance of the arbitrator's factual findings; the arbitrator's factual determinations were supported by evidence and within the tribunal's remit, so minimal judicial intervention precludes setting aside the award.
28 Jun 2019
The court found no breach of natural justice because the tribunal afforded full opportunity to argue utmost good faith and its concise rejection of that doctrine did not deny a hearing; the tribunal's conclusion was a factual one (contract construction regarding PNOC and expiry) and the plaintiff's s42 questions were mixed law and fact and would necessitate prohibited re‑examination of the tribunal's factual findings; therefore the originating summons was dismissed and the Majority Award upheld.