Gavagnin v Barnett and Another (J273/99) [2001] ZALC 23 (13 February 2001)

Gavagnin v Barnett and Another (J273/99) [2001] ZALC 23 (13 February 2001)

The court found that the second respondent, acting as arbitrator, demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the arbitration and adjudication process. He failed to properly distinguish between oral and documentary evidence, misrepresented the nature of the evidence presented, and made findings unsupported by the record. The arbitrator's conduct amounted to gross irregularity, justifying the review and setting aside of the award. The court further held that such conduct warranted a special costs order against the arbitrator and that the matter should be referred back to the CCMA for fresh arbitration. The judgment was also directed to be brought to the attention of the Director of...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 23
Parties
Applicant: Bernadette Melanie Louise Gavagnin; Respondent: Lisa Barnett; Respondent: Ezekiel Mofolo
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2001
Case Number
J273/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Default Judgment Application; Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside; matter referred back to CCMA; special costs order against second respondent.
Judges
Bruinders
Legal Topics
Arbitration Review, Gross Irregularity, Costs Order, Ccma Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Review Gross Irregularity Costs Order Ccma Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernadette Melanie Louise Gavagnin

Applicant

Lisa Barnett

Respondent

Ezekiel Mofolo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Default Judgment Application; Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award delivered by the second respondent was vitiated by gross irregularity.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the arbitrator justified a special costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be referred back to the CCMA for fresh arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent, acting as arbitrator, demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the arbitration and adjudication process. He failed to properly distinguish between oral and documentary evidence, misrepresented the nature of the evidence presented, and made findings unsupported by the record. The arbitrator's conduct amounted to gross irregularity, justifying the review and setting aside of the award. The court further held that such conduct warranted a special costs order against the arbitrator and that the matter should be referred back to the CCMA for fresh arbitration. The judgment was also directed to be brought to the attention of the Director of...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside; matter referred back to CCMA; special costs order against second respondent.

Orders

  • The arbitration award by second respondent dated 4 December 1998 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the CCMA for arbitration.