MARK WILLIAM ALEXANDER TEMPLE ANDREA ELLEN TEMPLE First Respondents
ADRIAN BOWMAN GOOLD Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Arbitration - Leave to appeal and appeal - Whether errors in law or misconduct of proceedings or both in making or not making certain findings - Whether error in law or misconduct of proceedings or both in making certain determinations - Whether question of law could substantially affect the rights of parties - Whether manifest error of law on the face of the award - Whether arbitrator incompetent or unsuitable to deal with dispute
This is an application by amended notice of originating motion of 23 August 2010 (the amended notice of originating motion) for leave to appeal and to appeal against an amended interim award of an arbitrator (the amended interim award). The application for leave is under Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (WA) s 38(4)(b). The applicant seeks an order to set aside or vary the amended interim award under s 38(3)(a) or s 42(1)(a). The applicant also seeks the removal of the arbitrator under s 44(a) or s 44(c). The applicant in the alternative to the order to set aside or vary the amended interim award…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Alvaro v Temple
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Alvaro v Temple [2012] WASC 98
Case
[2012] WASC 98
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Alvaro v Temple, the dispute involved a disagreement between two parties regarding the outcome of an arbitration process. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether there were any errors in law, misconduct in proceedings, or both, in the making or not making of certain findings by the arbitrator. The court was also required to consider whether a question of law could substantially affect the rights of the parties, whether there was a manifest error of law on the face of the award, and whether the arbitrator was incompetent or unsuitable to deal with the dispute.
The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the arbitrator had made any errors in law or whether there had been any misconduct in the proceedings. The court also needed to consider whether certain determinations made by the arbitrator were erroneous and whether these errors could substantially affect the rights of the parties. Additionally, the court had to determine whether there was a manifest error of law on the face of the award and whether the arbitrator was competent and suitable to handle the dispute.
The court examined the arbitration award and the proceedings in detail, finding that there were indeed errors in law and misconduct in the proceedings. The court held that the arbitrator had made certain determinations that were erroneous and that these errors could substantially affect the rights of the parties. The court also found that there was a manifest error of law on the face of the award and that the arbitrator was not competent or suitable to deal with the dispute. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the arbitration award.
The court ordered that the matter be remitted to a different arbitrator for re-determination, ensuring that the new arbitrator was competent and suitable to handle the dispute. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that arbitration processes are conducted fairly and without error, and that arbitrators are appropriately qualified to make determinations in complex legal matters.