Human v Berger and Another (2012/47836) [2013] ZAGPJHC 101 (7 May 2013)

Human v Berger and Another (2012/47836) [2013] ZAGPJHC 101 (7 May 2013)

The court found that the arbitrator did not commit any gross irregularity or exceed his powers in making the interim costs award. The arbitrator was entitled to interpret the lease agreement, including clause 25, in determining the interim position on costs. The arbitrator's reasoning, which considered fairness and the relevant statutory provisions, was not unreasonable. The applicant's complaints were found to be attempts to challenge the merits of the arbitrator's decision rather than genuine grounds for review. The arbitrator retained discretion to make a final determination on costs at the conclusion of the arbitration, and the interim award did not prejudice the applicant's rights....

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 101
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Nicolaas Human; Respondent: Kelly Jade Berger; Respondent: Robert Krombein NO
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2013
Case Number
2012/47836
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Motion; Review of Interim Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review and setting aside of the interim arbitration award is dismissed.
Judges
K Satchwell
Legal Topics
Arbitration Review, Lease Agreement Dispute, Costs Award, Gross Irregularity, Interpretation of Contract
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Review Lease Agreement Dispute Costs Award Gross Irregularity Interpretation of Contract

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

Parties

Jacobus Nicolaas Human

Applicant

Kelly Jade Berger

Respondent

Robert Krombein NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Motion; Review of Interim Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity or exceeded his powers in making the interim costs award.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator prejudged the issue of costs prior to hearing legal argument.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator was entitled to interpret and apply clause 25 of the lease agreement in determining interim costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator did not commit any gross irregularity or exceed his powers in making the interim costs award. The arbitrator was entitled to interpret the lease agreement, including clause 25, in determining the interim position on costs. The arbitrator's reasoning, which considered fairness and the relevant statutory provisions, was not unreasonable. The applicant's complaints were found to be attempts to challenge the merits of the arbitrator's decision rather than genuine grounds for review. The arbitrator retained discretion to make a final determination on costs at the conclusion of the arbitration, and the interim award did not prejudice the applicant's rights....

Court Disposition

Application for review and setting aside of the interim arbitration award is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review and setting aside is dismissed.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the first respondent's costs of the application on the party-party scale, including the costs of senior counsel.