Askew v Fields - [1985] HCA 4

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.

BARRY ASKEW v. ADRIAN FIELDS

(1985) 156 CLR 268

13 February 1985

Arbitration

Arbitration—Award—No findings made or calculations given—Whether grounds to set aside or remit to arbitrator—Whether published findings or calculations would establish error of law on face of award—Arbitration Act 1902 (N.S.W.), s. 12.

Decision

MASON, WILSON, BRENNAN, DEANE and DAWSON JJ. This is an appeal by a building owner against an order of the New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal against an order made by Enderby J. granting leave to a builder to enforce an arbitral award. That award was made on 30 July 1982 and provided that the owner should pay to the builder the sum of $21,366, inclusive of interest, together with costs amounting to $3,445.

2. In the Supreme Court the owner contested the builder's application for leave to enforce the award on the ground that the award was void and of no effect because it failed to deal with all the matters in dispute between the parties in the arbitration. By his cross claim the owner sought a declaration that the award was void, and in the alternative an order that the award should be set aside or remitted to the arbitrators for reconsideration. By his points of claim in the arbitration the builder had claimed that an amount of $21,390 was due and unpaid for work done under a contract for the execution of alterations and additions to premises at 19 Elizabeth Street, Paddington and also for extra work performed. In addition he claimed interest for various periods of portions of that amount. The owner's points of defence and counter claim disputed liability for some of the work, claimed sums due under a penalty clause and claimed damages for the cost of rectifying faulty work. A balance of $6,018 was claimed as due from the builder to the owner.

3. As the award provided that the owner should pay to the builder $21,366 inclusive of interest, it is apparent that the arbitrators did not both allow the whole of the builder's claim and reject the whole of the owner's claim. However, the award omits to specify what part of the builder's claim, if any, and what part of the owner's claim, if any, was rejected.

4. In this Court the owner submits that the award is invalid because it fails to make findings on the issues arising in the arbitration and fails to expose the mathematical calculations by which the arbitrators arrived at the balance due to the builder as the ultimately successful party. However, generally speaking, arbitrators are not bound to make such findings or to express their mathematical calculations in their award. Although arbitrators are bound to decide the issues submitted for their determination, they are not bound in the absence of special circumstances to expose in their award their findings on particular issues when the submission to arbitration is such that they are entitled to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Askew v Fields and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1985] HCA 4
Decision Date: 13 February 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Askew v Fields*, the parties were the plaintiff, Askew, and the defendant, Fields. The dispute concerned an application to set aside or remit an arbitration award made by an arbitrator. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the arbitrator's award, which contained no findings or calculations, provided grounds to set aside or remit the award under section 12 of the *Arbitration Act 1902* (N.S.W.). Specifically, the court considered whether the publication of findings or calculations by the arbitrator would reveal an error of law on the face of the award.

The High Court held that the absence of findings or calculations in an award did not, in itself, constitute grounds for setting aside or remitting the award. The court reasoned that for an error of law to be apparent on the face of the award, the award itself must contain the error, or it must be so expressed that the reasoning of the arbitrator can be seen to be erroneous. Merely lacking detailed findings or calculations does not equate to an error of law. The court affirmed that the purpose of section 12 was to allow for the correction of demonstrable legal errors, not to compel an arbitrator to provide a detailed exposition of their reasoning process.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's award.

Orders