Structural Monitoring Systems Ltd v Tulip Bay Pty Ltd

Structural Monitoring Systems Ltd brought an application against Tulip Bay Pty Ltd seeking to set aside an arbitral award made by the arbitrators. The dispute arose out of a contract for the installation of a structural monitoring system at the Goldfields Mill in Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the arbitral award should be set aside on the grounds of misconduct, specifically whether there was a denial of procedural fairness, excessive delay in the delivery of the award, and whether the matter was heard and determined by two arbitrators where three arbitrators had been appointed. The court had to determine if the alleged misconduct was sufficient to set aside the arbitral award.

The court considered whether the delay in the delivery of the award could support the conclusion that procedural fairness had been denied. It was noted that while excessive delay may suggest a denial of procedural fairness, it is not a necessary inference. The court also examined whether the decision was made by the correct number of arbitrators. In this case, the court found that the delay did not result in a denial of procedural fairness as the decision did not turn on the demeanour of the parties involved. Furthermore, the court held that the decision was valid as it was made by the two arbitrators appointed, even though a third arbitrator had been initially appointed.

Based on the findings, the court dismissed the application to set aside the arbitral award. The delay in the delivery of the award did not amount to a denial of procedural fairness, and the decision was valid as it was made by the appointed arbitrators. The court held that the application was without merit, and the arbitral award stood as made.

The court dismissed the application and made no orders for costs.