Human v Berger and Another (2012/47836) [2013] ZAGPJHC 305 (7 May 2013)

Human v Berger and Another (2012/47836) [2013] ZAGPJHC 305 (7 May 2013)

The court found that the arbitrator acted within his discretion as provided by the lease agreement and the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator's interim award on costs was based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant contractual clauses and statutory provisions. The applicant failed to demonstrate any gross irregularity, procedural unfairness, or excess of powers. The arbitrator did not prejudge the issue, and his reasoning, even if open to question, did not amount to reviewable conduct. The application was dismissed as the applicant's complaints were more akin to an appeal than a review.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 305
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 / Judgment on Application to Review and Set Aside 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 4 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 / Judgment on Application to Review and Set Aside Interim Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity or exceeded his powers in making an interim award on costs.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator misconceived his duties in interpreting the lease agreement's costs provisions.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's reliance on clause 25 and section 35 of the Arbitration Act was procedurally and substantively correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator acted within his discretion as provided by the lease agreement and the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator's interim award on costs was based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant contractual clauses and statutory provisions. The applicant failed to demonstrate any gross irregularity, procedural unfairness, or excess of powers. The arbitrator did not prejudge the issue, and his reasoning, even if open to question, did not amount to reviewable conduct. The application was dismissed as the applicant's complaints were more akin to an appeal than a review.

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.