Sarkem Ltd v Marafioti

Sarkem Ltd sought to appeal against an arbitrator’s finding in a dispute with Marafioti regarding workers’ compensation benefits. The central issue was whether the Arbitrator correctly assessed Marafioti's credibility and the impact of his alleged failure to disclose changes in circumstances. The appeal argued that the Arbitrator did not sufficiently scrutinise Marafioti's evidence, leading to an incorrect conclusion about his credibility and the weight to be given to his testimony.

The court needed to determine if the Arbitrator's approach to assessing Marafioti's credibility was appropriate. Specifically, it needed to consider whether the Arbitrator correctly applied the Briginshaw standard, which requires an assessment of evidence based on the balance of probabilities. The court also had to examine if the Arbitrator’s summation of the evidence aligned with the legal standards for assessing credibility and whether the Arbitrator adequately considered the effect of his findings on Marafioti’s credibility.

The court found that the Arbitrator did not treat Marafioti's evidence with the required careful scrutiny. The summation of the evidence indicated an incorrect approach to the balance of probabilities, potentially imposing an undue burden on Sarkem Ltd. The Arbitrator's findings did not reflect a reasoned conclusion based on the relative probative value of the evidence. The court concluded that the Arbitrator did not sufficiently consider the impact of his findings on Marafioti’s credibility and that the acceptance or rejection of evidence should be decided according to the Briginshaw standard.

The court ordered that the appeal be upheld and remitted the matter to a different arbitrator for reassessment of Marafioti's credibility and the impact of the alleged failure to disclose changes in circumstances.