Buyrite Steel Supplies Pty Ltd v Hart

Buyrite Steel Supplies Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought to enforce an arbitral award against Hart (the respondent). The dispute arose from a contract for the supply of steel, which contained an arbitration clause. Following arbitration, an award was made in favour of Buyrite Steel Supplies. Hart subsequently sought to set aside the award, alleging that the arbitrator had misconducted himself and that the award was void. The application to set aside the award was dismissed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and Hart appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in dismissing Hart's application to set aside the arbitral award. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the arbitrator had been guilty of misconduct, as alleged by Hart, and whether the award was otherwise void. The grounds of alleged misconduct included the arbitrator failing to give Hart a fair opportunity to present its case and the arbitrator acting in a manner that was biased or unfair.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's decision, finding no evidence of misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. The court applied the principles of the *Commercial Arbitration Act 2010* (NSW), which provides limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award. It was held that the arbitrator had afforded Hart a sufficient opportunity to present its case and that there was no basis to conclude that the arbitrator had acted unfairly or with bias. The court emphasised that the threshold for establishing misconduct in arbitration proceedings is high and that mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of the arbitration is not sufficient to warrant setting aside an award.

The appeal was dismissed, and the arbitral award in favour of Buyrite Steel Supplies Pty Ltd was upheld.