Hardy and Another v Jeremy Delport Construction CC and Others (2224/14) [2015] ZAECPEHC 6 (24 February 2015)

Hardy and Another v Jeremy Delport Construction CC and Others (2224/14) [2015] ZAECPEHC 6 (24 February 2015)

The court found that the second respondent, the arbitrator, was not properly served with the application papers. Attempts to serve him at his known address in Port Elizabeth were unsuccessful, and subsequent service on the third respondent was insufficient. The court held that proper service on the arbitrator was essential, especially given the serious allegations of bias and lack of impartiality. Without proper service, the arbitrator was deprived of the opportunity to respond or oppose the application. Consequently, the court could not grant any relief sought by the applicants, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2015] ZAECPEHC 6
Parties
Applicant: Kevin Hardy; Applicant: Laila Hardy; Respondent: Jeremy Delport Construction CC; Respondent: Moroke Nteene; Respondent: Association of Arbitrators (SA)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2015
Case Number
2224/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Setting Aside Arbitration Agreement and Removal of Arbitrator
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
MN Hinana
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Removal of Arbitrator, Arbitration Agreement, Proper Service, Bias and Impartiality
Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Service of Process Removal of Arbitrator Arbitration Agreement Proper Service Bias and Impartiality

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

Kevin Hardy

Applicant

Laila Hardy

Applicant

Jeremy Delport Construction CC

Respondent

Moroke Nteene

Respondent

Association of Arbitrators (SA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Setting Aside Arbitration Agreement and Removal of Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the second respondent, the appointed arbitrator, properly served with the application papers as required by law?
  2. 2 Can the court grant relief to set aside the arbitration agreement or remove the arbitrator without proper service on the arbitrator?
  3. 3 Does the failure to serve the arbitrator deprive him of the opportunity to respond to allegations of bias and impartiality?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent, the arbitrator, was not properly served with the application papers. Attempts to serve him at his known address in Port Elizabeth were unsuccessful, and subsequent service on the third respondent was insufficient. The court held that proper service on the arbitrator was essential, especially given the serious allegations of bias and lack of impartiality. Without proper service, the arbitrator was deprived of the opportunity to respond or oppose the application. Consequently, the court could not grant any relief sought by the applicants, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.