Gale v Van Doorn and Another (3093/10) [2011] ZAKZDHC 17 (3 March 2011)

Gale v Van Doorn and Another (3093/10) [2011] ZAKZDHC 17 (3 March 2011)

The court found that the respondents had confirmed the appointment of Morgan as arbitrator without any actionable non-disclosure by the applicant. The respondents were aware of the appointment process and did not object prior to or during the arbitration. Their subsequent claim of mistaken impression was not supported by evidence of misrepresentation or material non-disclosure. The respondents participated in the arbitration and agreed to its terms, as recorded in the minute. The Management Rules under both Acts allow for agreement by the parties to an arbitrator, and the respondents are bound by their consent. No other basis for reviewing or setting aside the award was advanced. The...

Citation
[2011] ZAKZDHC 17
Parties
Applicant: J Gale; Respondent: C Van Doorn; Respondent: M Macleod
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2011
Case Number
3093/10
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court
Outcome
Application granted. Arbitration award made an order of court.
Judges
Gorven
Legal Topics
Sectional Titles Act, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Management Rules, Appointment of Arbitrator
Civil Procedure Land and Property Sectional Titles Act Arbitration Award Enforcement Management Rules Appointment of Arbitrator

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J Gale

Applicant

C Van Doorn

Respondent

M Macleod

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are bound by the arbitration award made by Morgan.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of the arbitrator was valid and consented to by the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether any material non-disclosure vitiated the respondents' consent to arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had confirmed the appointment of Morgan as arbitrator without any actionable non-disclosure by the applicant. The respondents were aware of the appointment process and did not object prior to or during the arbitration. Their subsequent claim of mistaken impression was not supported by evidence of misrepresentation or material non-disclosure. The respondents participated in the arbitration and agreed to its terms, as recorded in the minute. The Management Rules under both Acts allow for agreement by the parties to an arbitrator, and the respondents are bound by their consent. No other basis for reviewing or setting aside the award was advanced. The...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Arbitration award made an order of court.

Orders

  • The respondents are to construct, at their cost, an access stairway from the garage of the applicant to the central walkway, including the installation of a door and frame into the side of the garage. The design shall be in keeping with the existing architecture and acceptable to the applicant.
  • The respondents are directed to pay one half of the costs of the arbitration.