Bike Mob (Pty) Ltd and Others v Arbitrator and Another (7496/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 120 (21 June 2021)

Bike Mob (Pty) Ltd and Others v Arbitrator and Another (7496/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 120 (21 June 2021)

The court found that the arbitration agreement conferred the widest possible discretion on the arbitrator, including the power to make rulings regarding the payment of fees and charges during the arbitration. The arbitrator did not exceed his powers in making the interim award/ruling, as the agreement and the Arbitration Act supported such authority. The applicants' claim of perceived bias was rejected, as their conduct after the interim award/ruling indicated no genuine apprehension of bias, and the arbitrator continued to act impartially, even ruling in their favour on subsequent matters. The application for review and removal of the arbitrator was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] ZAWCHC 120
Parties
Applicant: Bike Mob (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Sean Patrick Stack; Applicant: Neville Shane Cragg; Respondent: The Arbitrator; Respondent: Capitalgro (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2021
Case Number
7496/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review and Setting Aside of Interim Arbitration Award and Removal of Arbitrator
Outcome
Application dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
J Cloete
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Review, Arbitrator Removal, Contractual Interpretation, Interim Award, Perceived Bias
Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Award Review Arbitrator Removal Contractual Interpretation Interim Award Perceived Bias

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bike Mob (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Sean Patrick Stack

Applicant

Neville Shane Cragg

Applicant

The Arbitrator

Respondent

Capitalgro (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review and Setting Aside of Interim Arbitration Award and Removal of Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers in making the interim award/ruling regarding fees and charges.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator should be removed for perceived bias.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitration agreement conferred the widest possible discretion on the arbitrator, including the power to make rulings regarding the payment of fees and charges during the arbitration. The arbitrator did not exceed his powers in making the interim award/ruling, as the agreement and the Arbitration Act supported such authority. The applicants' claim of perceived bias was rejected, as their conduct after the interim award/ruling indicated no genuine apprehension of bias, and the arbitrator continued to act impartially, even ruling in their favour on subsequent matters. The application for review and removal of the arbitrator was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party shall pay their own costs.