Anaconda Operations Pty Ltd v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd

Anaconda Operations Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal against an arbitral award issued by an Arbitral Tribunal under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (Vic). The award had been rendered in a dispute arising from a contract for the construction of a mining facility. The primary contention was whether the Tribunal had committed a manifest error of law in rejecting a claimed remedy for breach of contract.

The court had to determine if the Tribunal’s rejection of the remedy for breach of warranty was a manifest error of law. This required considering whether the Tribunal’s approach to the remedy was in accordance with established legal principles, particularly whether it correctly assessed the burden of proof for the claimant. The court also examined if the error was so obvious that it did not necessitate prolonged adversarial argument. Additionally, the court assessed whether the Tribunal’s failure to approach the remedy for breach of warranty correctly was a manifest error of law that could substantially affect the rights of the parties.

The court found that the Arbitral Tribunal had indeed committed a manifest error of law by incorrectly placing the burden of proof on the claimant to establish that their remedy was the only one possible. This error was deemed obvious and did not require further adversarial argument. The court granted leave to appeal and determined the appeal on the spot, remitting the award and reasons for judgment back to the Arbitral Tribunal for reconsideration. The court also dismissed the allegations of procedural misconduct concerning the interest awards and found that natural justice did not require the publication of principal findings with an opportunity for further submissions on interest.