Unicorn Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd v Edwards NO and Others (C118/17) [2018] ZALCCT 46 (20 February 2018)

Unicorn Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd v Edwards NO and Others (C118/17) [2018] ZALCCT 46 (20 February 2018)

The court found that the arbitrator was not appointed in accordance with the arbitration agreement, which required either mutual agreement between the parties or appointment by the chairperson of the Association of Arbitrators. The respondents failed to seek the applicant's agreement and did not obtain an appointment from the Association. The notice of arbitration was also defective, as it was sent to a general fax number and not to the appropriate legal contact, and did not comply with statutory requirements. As a result, the arbitration award was improperly obtained and must be set aside. The court held that these procedural defects were sufficient to vitiate the award, regardless of...

Citation
[2018] ZALCCT 46
Parties
Applicant: Unicorn Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Arbitrator K Edwards N.O.; Respondent: Paul van der Horst and 12 others
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 February 2018
Case Number
C118/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is granted.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Arbitration Act Review, Irregular Appointment of Arbitrator, Defective Notice, Unfair Dismissal
Civil Procedure Labour Law Arbitration Act Review Irregular Appointment of Arbitrator Defective Notice Unfair Dismissal

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unicorn Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Arbitrator K Edwards N.O.

Respondent

Paul van der Horst and 12 others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator was properly appointed in terms of the arbitration agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant received proper notice of the arbitration proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award was improperly obtained and should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator was not appointed in accordance with the arbitration agreement, which required either mutual agreement between the parties or appointment by the chairperson of the Association of Arbitrators. The respondents failed to seek the applicant's agreement and did not obtain an appointment from the Association. The notice of arbitration was also defective, as it was sent to a general fax number and not to the appropriate legal contact, and did not comply with statutory requirements. As a result, the arbitration award was improperly obtained and must be set aside. The court held that these procedural defects were sufficient to vitiate the award, regardless of...

Court Disposition

The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is granted.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued by Ms Kim Edwards is reviewed and set aside.
  • No order as to costs.