Gingis v Mount Scopus Memorial College Ltd - [1998] VSCA 49

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted
No. 5629 of 1997

AARON (ARKADY) GINGIS AND MASYA
GINGIS

Appellants

v

MOUNT SCOPUS MEMORIAL COLLEGE
LIMITED (ACN 007 240 146)

Respondent

---

JUDGES: TADGELL, PHILLIPS and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 9 September 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 9 September 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSCA 49

---

ARBITRATION - Rabbinical arbitration - Award - Stay of judicial proceedings - Step in proceedings - Award must be final, certain and complete determination - Uncertainty - Principles of construction of arbitral award.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Appellants Mr J.V. Kaufman, Q.C. and A. Lewenberg & Co.
Mr D.B. Baker
For the Respondent Mr G.H. Golvan, Q.C. and Kinos
Mr F.J. Holzer

TADGELL, J.A.:

I shall invite Charles, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

CHARLES, J.A.:

On 20 March 1996, the plaintiff/respondent (the "school"), a body corporate operating schools in Melbourne, commenced proceedings against the defendants, now the appellants, in the County Court at Melbourne claiming payment of $45,196 from the appellants for school fees allegedly owing by them in respect of their three children for the years April 1986 to February 1993. The appellants, by their defence dated 23 April 1996, denied that they were indebted to the school and pleaded that the dispute had by agreement between the parties been submitted to arbitration by Rabbi P.W. Heilbrunn, that an award had been made by the arbitrator on 6 March 1995, and that the County Court accordingly did not have jurisdiction to try and determine the proceeding. The appellants, by their further and better particulars of defence dated 30 May 1996, alleged that they relied on the decision of Rabbi Heilbrunn, and that the school had not appealed against Rabbi Heilbrunn's award, and further relied upon the provisions of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 ("the Act"). The appellants further alleged that during the arbitration Rabbi Heilbrunn had determined that the correct amount owed to the school was $12,120.
The action was tried by a judge of the County Court over some three weeks, the appellants appearing in person. On 13 May 1997 the learned judge gave judgment for the school in the sum of $45,196 plus interest of $4,519 and costs to be taxed on County Court Scale C. The appellants do not appeal from the substantive decision of his Honour that the school was entitled to its claim in full, or from the conclusion of the trial judge that -
"It follows that the defendants were the authors of their own problems with respect to their indebtedness to the plaintiff. Had the defendants supplied sufficient information and been frank and open, they probably would have received a fee subsidy in respect of the fees charged in 1990. Had they made application for a fee subsidy for the school year 1991,

and for the school year 1992, and supplied the requisite information in each case, they probably would have received a substantial fee subsidy in respect…

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 Gingis v Mount Scopus Memorial College Ltd 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: [1998] VSCA 49
Decision Date: 9 September 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gingis v Mount Scopus Memorial College Ltd was an appeal heard by the High Court of Australia concerning the interpretation of an arbitral award. The appellant, Gingis, sought to enforce an arbitral award that was made by a rabbinical tribunal against the respondent, Mount Scopus Memorial College Ltd, a Jewish educational institution. The primary dispute centred on the enforceability of the rabbinical tribunal's decision within the Australian legal system, particularly in relation to the specific terms of the award and whether it constituted a final, certain and complete determination.

The legal issues before the court were whether the arbitral award was sufficiently clear and specific to warrant enforcement, and if the court could intervene to clarify or interpret the award. The court had to determine whether the principles of construction applicable to arbitral awards mandated that the award be interpreted in a manner that rendered it enforceable, or whether the inherent uncertainty precluded enforcement. This involved examining the nature and scope of judicial intervention in the interpretation of arbitral awards, particularly those derived from non-secular tribunals.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the arbitral award was not sufficiently clear or specific to be enforced as it stood. The award contained ambiguities that prevented a final, certain and complete determination of the dispute. The court emphasised that for an arbitral award to be enforceable, it must be final, certain and complete in its terms. Given the rabbinical tribunal's award lacked clarity on essential aspects of the dispute, the court found it inappropriate to enforce the award in its current form. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remitted to the arbitral tribunal for further clarification.

Orders