Lasalle Furniture v State of South Australia No. Scgrg-00-274

[2000] SASC 150

LASALLE FURNITURE v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
[2000] SASC 150

Full Court:  Doyle CJ, Duggan and Lander JJ
Leave to appeal in private

1. DOYLE CJ:       This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision by an arbitrator.

2. Debelle J refused leave to appeal, pursuant to s 38(4) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1986. His order refusing leave to appeal is dated 28 April 2000.

3. The application for leave to appeal was considered by the Full Court in private pursuant to r 94.03.  For that purpose the Court comprised me, Duggan and Lander JJ.

4. The test that the applicant has to satisfy to obtain leave to appeal is set out in s 38 of the Commercial Arbitration Act.  The issue in the application to us, as it was before Debelle J, is whether we are satisfied that there is a manifest error of law on the face of the award, or whether we are satisfied that there is strong evidence that the Arbitrator made an error of law and that the determination of the question may add, or may be likely to add, substantially to the certainty of commercial law.  We accept, as did Debelle J, that the question or questions that would be raised by the appeal could substantially affect the rights of the parties. 

5. We have considered the reasons of the Arbitrator, the brief reasons of Debelle J refusing leave to appeal, and the written submissions submitted by the applicant.

6. The thrust of the case for the applicant is that the respondent was guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct in failing to provide to the applicant certain information relevant to the work which it contracted to do.  The contractual obligation is clear, and it does not appear to be disputed that in certain respects the applicant did not perform its contractual obligations.  The case for the applicant is that had the relevant information been provided to it before it entered into the contract, it would not have undertaken the contractual obligation that it in fact undertook.  We are not satisfied, on the material before us, that the Arbitrator misunderstood this aspect of the applicant's case, or that he wrongly applied the principles that are relevant to the point.  In saying that we rely upon the reasons given by the Arbitrator.  In any event, we are not satisfied that there is a manifest error of law, by the Arbitrator, or strong evidence that he made an error of law, in reaching the conclusion that the applicant's claim before him should fail.  In other words, even if there is evidence from the reasons that the Arbitrator did not fully address the particular argument now raised by the applicant, we are not satisfied that his decision, which was adverse to the applicant, provides strong evidence of an error of law. 

7. For those reasons, and applying the stringent tests for the grant of leave to appeal under the Commercial Arbitration Act, we are unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused.