Hui v Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2)
Case
•
[2017] FCA 728
•26 June 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hui v Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 728
[2017] FCA 728
26 June 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The respondents, Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd and its director, applied to the Federal Court of Australia to set aside certain parts of two partial arbitral awards made by an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration. The arbitration was between the respondents and the applicants, Hui and others, concerning alleged breaches of contract. The applicants also sought the removal of the arbitrator, arguing that the arbitrator had lost the confidence of the parties and had failed to comply with certain orders made by the Court.
The court needed to decide whether to set aside parts of the arbitral awards and whether to remove the arbitrator. The applicants argued that the awards contained errors that went to the merits of the dispute and that the arbitrator had acted in a manner that breached natural justice. The respondents opposed the applications, arguing that the court should not interfere with the arbitrator’s decisions and that the applicants had failed to raise their objections in a timely manner.
The court held that the errors in the arbitral awards went to the merits of the dispute and were therefore grounds for setting them aside. The court also found that the arbitrator had failed to comply with certain orders made by the Court, which had led to a loss of confidence in the arbitrator. The court therefore granted the application to remove the arbitrator and ordered that the mandate of the arbitrator be terminated. The court also set aside certain parts of the arbitral awards and made orders for costs. The court held that it had the power to rewrite an arbitral award where it contained errors that went to the merits of the dispute.
The court made orders setting aside certain parts of the arbitral awards, terminating the mandate of the arbitrator, and granting liberty to apply for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator. The court also made orders for costs, requiring the respondents to pay the applicants’ and the second respondent’s costs of the proceeding on a party-party basis.
The court needed to decide whether to set aside parts of the arbitral awards and whether to remove the arbitrator. The applicants argued that the awards contained errors that went to the merits of the dispute and that the arbitrator had acted in a manner that breached natural justice. The respondents opposed the applications, arguing that the court should not interfere with the arbitrator’s decisions and that the applicants had failed to raise their objections in a timely manner.
The court held that the errors in the arbitral awards went to the merits of the dispute and were therefore grounds for setting them aside. The court also found that the arbitrator had failed to comply with certain orders made by the Court, which had led to a loss of confidence in the arbitrator. The court therefore granted the application to remove the arbitrator and ordered that the mandate of the arbitrator be terminated. The court also set aside certain parts of the arbitral awards and made orders for costs. The court held that it had the power to rewrite an arbitral award where it contained errors that went to the merits of the dispute.
The court made orders setting aside certain parts of the arbitral awards, terminating the mandate of the arbitrator, and granting liberty to apply for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator. The court also made orders for costs, requiring the respondents to pay the applicants’ and the second respondent’s costs of the proceeding on a party-party basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Arbitration
-
Set Aside
-
Stay of Proceedings
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
2
Hui v Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd
[2017] FCA 648
Hui v Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd
[2017] FCA 648