Fluor Australia Pty Ltd v Anaconda Operations Pty Ltd

Fluor Australia Pty Ltd was engaged by Anaconda Operations Pty Ltd for construction work under a contract that included an arbitration clause. Disputes arose, leading to arbitration where the Tribunal made a decision. Fluor challenged the award, seeking leave to appeal on the basis that the Tribunal had made a manifest error of law in interpreting certain contractual terms. The Court of Appeal examined whether the Tribunal's interpretation of the contract was a manifest error of law on the face of the award.

The central legal issue was whether the arbitral tribunal had made a manifest error of law in interpreting certain contractual terms. Fluor argued that the Tribunal's interpretation was a manifest error because it misconstrued the contract by adopting a literal construction that was devoid of common sense and unworkable. The Court needed to determine whether the Tribunal's interpretation was so clearly wrong that it constituted a manifest error of law, warranting an appeal.

The Court found that the Tribunal's construction of the contractual terms was fairly arguable and reasonable. It gave effect to the interrelated literal terms in context and was workable. The Court held that the Tribunal's construction was preferable to Fluor's proposed interpretation. Given that the Tribunal's interpretation was reasonably open and not manifestly erroneous, the Court exercised its discretion not to grant leave to appeal. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's construction did not constitute a manifest error of law on the face of the award and dismissed Fluor's application.

No further orders were made as the application was dismissed.