SURACE v Peoplesmove Pty Ltd (Trading as Carhood)

In *Surace v Peoplesmove Pty Ltd (Trading as Carhood)*, the applicant, Mr Surace, sought to set aside an arbitration award made in favour of the respondent, Peoplesmove Pty Ltd (trading as Carhood). The dispute arose from a contract for the provision of car parking services at Sydney Airport. Mr Surace alleged that Carhood had breached the contract by failing to provide the agreed services, leading to significant inconvenience and financial loss. The matter proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator found in favour of Carhood, dismissing Mr Surace's claims. Mr Surace then applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales to have this award set aside.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the arbitration award should be set aside on the grounds of apprehended bias on the part of the arbitrator. Mr Surace contended that the arbitrator had demonstrated a lack of impartiality, which vitiated the fairness of the arbitral process. Specifically, he argued that the arbitrator's conduct during the arbitration hearing, including certain comments made and the manner in which evidence was received, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the arbitrator was not neutral.

Judge Jones considered the principles governing the setting aside of arbitration awards under the *Commercial Arbitration Act 2010* (NSW), particularly the grounds relating to impartiality and procedural fairness. The Court applied the test for apprehended bias, which requires determining whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the arbitrator was biased. Judge Jones reviewed the transcript of the arbitration and the evidence presented by Mr Surace, ultimately finding that the arbitrator's conduct, while perhaps robust at times, did not reach the threshold required to establish apprehended bias. The Court concluded that a fair-minded observer would not have concluded that the arbitrator was not impartial, and therefore, the award was not vitiated by bias.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr Surace's application to set aside the arbitration award.