Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Mio Art Pty Ltd

Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd applied to the Supreme Court of Queensland to set aside two arbitral awards made by an arbitrator to whom a dispute was referred under a contract between the parties. The respondent, Mio Art Pty Ltd, argued that if the application was granted, the court should suspend the setting aside of the awards to give the arbitrator an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings. The primary issue was whether the court has the power to remit the proceedings to the arbitrator after setting aside the award under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld). The court also considered whether the arbitrator exceeded their authority and whether the awards should be set aside on the basis of procedural unfairness.

The court held that the arbitrator did not exceed their authority by applying a valuation method that differed from the one set out in the contract. The court found that the contract required a market valuation, but it did not specify a particular method. The court held that the arbitrator was entitled to choose a valuation method that was appropriate in the circumstances, and the method they chose was reasonable. The court also held that the arbitrator did not act in a procedurally unfair way by rejecting witness evidence and making findings on the basis of points that were not raised with the witness or the applicant's counsel. The court found that the arbitrator was entitled to consider all the evidence before them and make findings based on that evidence. The court held that the applicant had not established that the arbitrator acted in a way that was procedurally unfair.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the awards. The court held that it did not have the power to remit the proceedings to the arbitrator after setting aside the award under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld). The court held that the power to remit the proceedings to the arbitrator was a power that was available to the parties under the arbitration agreement, and it was not a power that was available to the court under the Act. The court held that the application to set aside the awards should be dismissed.