Miles v Palm Bridge Pty Ltd - [2001] WASC 113

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: MILES & ANOR -v- PALM BRIDGE PTY LTD [2001] WASC 113

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 30 APRIL 2001

DELIVERED : 8 MAY 2001

FILE NO/S: ARB 14 of 2000

BETWEEN: FREDERICK LAURENCE MILES
FAYE LORRAINE MILES
Applicants
AND
PALM BRIDGE PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Arbitration - Leave to enforce arbitrator's award on judgment - Award varied by successful appeal - Whether award as varied should be entered

Legislation:

Commercial Arbitration Act, s 33, s 38(1)

Result:

Award of arbitrator entered on judgment

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants: Mr R D Shaw
Respondent: Mr G H Murphy

Solicitors:

Applicants: Phillips Fox
Respondent: J D Finlay & Co

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3) (1995) 35 NSWLR 689
De Vaugh Pty Ltd v Lamac Developments Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 314

Case(s) also cited:

ACN 006 397 413 Pty Ltd v International Movie Group (Canada) Inc [1997] 2 VR31
Delbridge Holdings Pty Ltd v Campbell, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8046; 6 February 1990
J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federation Union of Workers (WA Branch) (No 2) (1993) 49 IR 301
JJ Agro Industries (P) Ltd v Texuna International Ltd [1992] 2 HKLR 391
LNC Harper Davidson Pty Ltd v Keywest Building Co Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7192; 13 July 1988
Middlemiss & Gould v Hartlepool Corporation Pty Ltd [1972] 1 WLR 1643
Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207
Triden Contractors Pty Ltd v Belvista Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of NSW; 26 September 1989

MASTER SANDERSON: By chamber summons dated 7 March 2001 the applicants seek the following orders:
"The final award of arbitrator D Standen as amended by amendment to final award dated 17 October 2000 and as varied by the order of the Honourable Justice Hasluck on 20 February 2001 be entered as a judgment of the Supreme Court."
The application is brought pursuant to s 33 of the Commercial Arbitration Act. It is common ground between the parties that by his final award the arbitrator found that there was an amount owing by the respondent to the applicants in the sum of $97,733.63. In his award the arbitrator dealt with the question of costs. The applicants were dissatisfied with the way in which the arbitrator resolved this issue and they applied to this Court pursuant to s 38(1) of the Act, claiming that there was an error of fact or law on the face of the award. The matter came on for hearing before Hasluck J on 16 February 2001 and on 20 February 2001 his Honour published reasons for setting aside the award with respect to costs and amending the award in the applicants' favour. Because of the significance of his Honour's decision to this application I will highlight relevant parts of his Honour's decision. It is appropriate to begin with his Honour's recitation of the facts:
"[3]By an…

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.

Continue reading Miles v Palm Bridge Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Miles v Palm Bridge Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 113
Case: [2001] WASC 113
Decision Date: 8 MAY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miles v Palm Bridge Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Miles, sought to enforce an arbitral award against the defendant, Palm Bridge. The award had been varied by a successful appeal, and Miles argued that the varied award should be entered. Palm Bridge contended that the varied award should not be enforced as it had not been approved by the court.

The legal issues before the court were whether an arbitral award, once varied by a successful appeal, could be enforced as varied and if the court had the authority to enter such a varied award. The court needed to determine if the varied award should be treated as the final determination of the dispute or if further judicial intervention was required.

The court held that an arbitral award, once varied by a successful appeal, should be treated as the final determination of the dispute. The court found that the varied award was the decision of the arbitral tribunal after considering the appeal, and as such, it should be enforced. The court also noted that the varied award had not been challenged in any way that would invalidate it, and therefore, it was appropriate to enter the varied award. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the arbitral award as varied.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to enforce the arbitral award as varied by the appeal. The defendant's argument that the varied award should not be enforced was rejected. The court's decision ensured that the final determination of the arbitral tribunal, after considering the appeal, was enforced, providing certainty and finality to the dispute.

Orders