Elspan v Eurocopter

In the matter of Elspan against Eurocopter, the dispute involved an interim arbitration award rendered by a single arbitrator under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW). Elspan sought leave to appeal against the interim award and moved to set aside parts of the award, alleging various forms of misconduct by the arbitrator, including that the arbitrator had mistaken the evidence, found facts not put to a witness, delayed the handing down of the award, and misconducted the proceedings. The court was required to determine whether there was a manifest error of law on the face of the award and to consider the meaning of 'manifest' in this context. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there was prejudice, a lack of confidence in the arbitrator, and the application of the rule in Browne v Dunn.

The court examined the nature of the alleged errors and the meaning of 'manifest' in the context of the arbitration proceedings. It found that the alleged errors did not amount to a manifest error of law on the face of the award. The court also determined that there was no prejudice to Elspan, as the alleged errors did not affect the outcome of the arbitration. The court further concluded that there was no lack of confidence in the arbitrator, and that the rule in Browne v Dunn did not apply. The court held that the alleged errors were not of such a nature as to justify setting aside the award, and that the application to set aside the award should be dismissed.

The court's reasoning and outcome hinged on the absence of a manifest error of law on the face of the award, the lack of prejudice to Elspan, and the absence of a lack of confidence in the arbitrator. The court found that the alleged errors did not meet the threshold for setting aside the award under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW). Consequently, the court dismissed Elspan's application to set aside parts of the award.

The final orders of the court were that Elspan's application to set aside parts of the award be dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The interim award rendered by the arbitrator remained in place, and the parties were directed to proceed with the arbitration process as previously ordered.