Bantry Construction Services (Pty) Ltd v Raydin Investments (Pty) Ltd (128/08) [2009] ZASCA 10; 2009 (3) SA 533 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 1 (SCA) (17 March 2009)

Bantry Construction Services (Pty) Ltd v Raydin Investments (Pty) Ltd (128/08) [2009] ZASCA 10; 2009 (3) SA 533 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 1 (SCA) (17 March 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Bantry failed to substantiate its allegations of gross irregularity or misconduct by the arbitrator. The objections raised were mere conclusions without factual foundation, and Bantry did not demonstrate that the arbitrator relied on improper evidence or acted capriciously. The court found that Bantry had misconceived the nature of its relief, as it should have invoked the statutory review provisions of section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act within six weeks of the award or launched a proper counter-application for review. Bantry's passive approach and failure to act timeously precluded it from challenging the award. The arbitrator acted within his...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 10
Parties
Appellant: Bantry Construction Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Raydin Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Case Number
128/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Johannesburg High Court, Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; arbitrator's award made an order of court.
Judges
Harms, Brand, Ponnan, Snyders, Mhlantla
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Enforcement, Arbitrator Misconduct, Review of Arbitration, Condonation, Gross Irregularity
Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Procedure Arbitration Award Enforcement Arbitrator Misconduct Review of Arbitration Condonation Gross Irregularity

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bantry Construction Services (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Raydin Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Johannesburg High Court, Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award should be made an order of court under section 31(1) of the Arbitration Act.
  2. 2 Whether Bantry's opposition, based on alleged gross irregularities or misconduct by the arbitrator, was factually substantiated.
  3. 3 Whether Bantry was entitled to have the arbitration award set aside despite failing to launch a timely counter-application for review.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Bantry failed to substantiate its allegations of gross irregularity or misconduct by the arbitrator. The objections raised were mere conclusions without factual foundation, and Bantry did not demonstrate that the arbitrator relied on improper evidence or acted capriciously. The court found that Bantry had misconceived the nature of its relief, as it should have invoked the statutory review provisions of section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act within six weeks of the award or launched a proper counter-application for review. Bantry's passive approach and failure to act timeously precluded it from challenging the award. The arbitrator acted within his...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; arbitrator's award made an order of court.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The arbitrator's award is made an order of court.