Tayar v Feldman

The case of Tayar v Feldman involved a dispute between the parties over the enforcement of an arbitration award. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the arbitration award could be enforced under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic). The court was also required to determine whether the arbitration was a 'domestic commercial arbitration' and whether the matters referred to arbitration were adequately defined.

The court first addressed the threshold requirement that the arbitration be a 'domestic commercial arbitration' as defined by the Act. The court found that the arbitration was indeed domestic, as the parties were both Australian residents, and the subject matter related to a commercial dispute. The court further examined whether the 'arbitration agreement' needed to define the matters referred to arbitration in writing, but found that the absence of a written statement of claim did not invalidate the agreement. The court held that there was no requirement under the Act for the matters referred to arbitration to be in writing, and any such requirement could be waived by the parties.

Regarding the enforceability of the award, the court found that there was no ascertainable sum from the award, and therefore, the court had no power to enforce the award under section 35 of the Act. However, the court also considered whether there were any grounds for refusal of enforcement under section 36. The court found that the reasons provided for the award were inadequate, and thus, the court exercised its discretion to decline the refusal of enforcement where the grounds for refusal were established. Ultimately, the court refused to enforce the award due to inadequate reasons, finding that enforcement would be unfair or prejudicial to the respondent.

The court made no further orders, as the refusal to enforce the award was the final outcome of the proceedings. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that arbitration agreements are clear and enforceable, and that awards are properly reasoned and contain ascertainable sums.