Leadtrain Assessments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Leadtrain (Pty) Ltd and Others (427/2012) [2013] ZASCA 33; 2013 (5) SA 84 (SCA) (28 March 2013)

Leadtrain Assessments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Leadtrain (Pty) Ltd and Others (427/2012) [2013] ZASCA 33; 2013 (5) SA 84 (SCA) (28 March 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the finality of arbitration awards is a guiding principle of consensual arbitration under the Arbitration Act. The grounds for judicial review are strictly limited to those set out in section 33(1), and mere error or misdirection by the arbitrator in awarding costs does not constitute 'good cause' for remittal under section 32(2). The court found that the respondents' case amounted to an attempt to appeal the arbitrator's decision under the guise of remittal, which is impermissible. Accordingly, the counter-application should have been dismissed, and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the costs award should have been made an order of court.

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 33
Parties
Appellant: Leadtrain Assessments (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: College-on-Line CC; Appellant: Steve Byron; Respondent: Leadtrain (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Richard Lilford; Respondent: Richard Lilford N.O. on behalf of The Rival Share Trust; Respondent: The Leadtrain Employees Share Trust; Respondent: D P de Villiers N.O.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Case Number
427/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; orders of the court below set aside and substituted with orders making paragraphs 4 and 5 of the costs award an order of court and dismissing the counter-application.
Judges
Nugent, Ponnan, Tshiqi, Swain, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Arbitration Act 1965, Arbitration Award Finality, Remittal for Reconsideration, Costs Award, Judicial Review of Arbitration
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Act 1965 Arbitration Award Finality Remittal for Reconsideration Costs Award Judicial Review of Arbitration

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leadtrain Assessments (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

College-on-Line CC

Appellant

Steve Byron

Appellant

Leadtrain (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Richard Lilford

Respondent

Richard Lilford N.O. on behalf of The Rival Share Trust

Respondent

The Leadtrain Employees Share Trust

Respondent

D P de Villiers N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's costs award can be set aside or remitted for reconsideration under section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965.
  2. 2 Whether alleged misdirection by the arbitrator in awarding costs constitutes 'good cause' for remittal under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the court below erred in granting the counter-application and setting aside paragraphs 4 and 5 of the costs award.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the finality of arbitration awards is a guiding principle of consensual arbitration under the Arbitration Act. The grounds for judicial review are strictly limited to those set out in section 33(1), and mere error or misdirection by the arbitrator in awarding costs does not constitute 'good cause' for remittal under section 32(2). The court found that the respondents' case amounted to an attempt to appeal the arbitrator's decision under the guise of remittal, which is impermissible. Accordingly, the counter-application should have been dismissed, and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the costs award should have been made an order of court.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; orders of the court below set aside and substituted with orders making paragraphs 4 and 5 of the costs award an order of court and dismissing the counter-application.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally.
  • The orders of the court below are set aside and substituted with: (i) The application succeeds to the extent that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the costs award made by the arbitrator on 5 August 2011 are made an order of court. The respondents are to pay the costs of the application. (ii) The counter-application is...