Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited v Belokoski

In the case of Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited v Belokoski, the primary issue was whether the arbitrator had exhibited apprehended bias in their determinations. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of various legal principles, including the concept of apprehended bias, credit findings, adequacy of reasons, and the weight of medical evidence. The court was tasked with determining whether the arbitrator's determinations were illogical, irrational, or lacked a basis in findings or inferences of fact supported on logical grounds. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the appellant's complaint of apprehended bias was substantiated and whether the arbitrator's factual determinations were made in a manner that was illogical, irrational, or lacked a proper basis. The court also had to consider whether the leave to make further submissions was restricted to the application of the case law, specifically Nicholls, and not to making further submissions regarding the alleged failure to exercise jurisdiction. The court needed to determine if the appellant's argument regarding apprehended bias was fallacious, as suggested by the respondent.

The court's reasoning was that the appellant's submissions concerning apprehended bias were unfounded, as they did not identify any conduct by the arbitrator that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that she had prejudged the issue. The court emphasised that the test for apprehended bias is one of possibility, not probability, and requires an objective assessment of the connection between the facts and circumstances said to give rise to the apprehension. The court further explained that an allegation of apprehended bias does not permit consideration of whether the judge had in fact prejudged an issue. The court concluded that the appellant's submissions were misconceived and did not direct themselves to identifying anything done or said by the arbitrator that might lead to a reasonable apprehension that she might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the questions she was required to decide.

The outcome of the case was that the arbitrator's determination, dated 10 October 2016, was confirmed. The court found that the appellant's complaints regarding apprehended bias and the weight of medical evidence were unfounded, and the arbitrator's determinations were not illogical, irrational, or lacking a proper basis. The court upheld the decision of the arbitrator, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed.