Methanex Motunui Ltd v Spellman CA171/03

This case is an appeal from a judgment of Fisher J in which he granted applications made by the second to ninth respondents to strike out the claims brought by the appellants (Methanex) against the first to ninth respondents. Methanex sought review of the arbitrator's decision on the basis that the arbitrator had conducted the arbitration in a manner which was contrary to the rules of natural justice. Fisher J found that Methanex had established an arguable case that it had party status, but that it had not established an arguable case that it was entitled to review on the basis of breach of the rules of natural justice. Methanex has appealed to this Court against that decision and the second to ninth respondents have cross-appealed against Fisher J's finding on the party issue. The issues to be determined are whether Methanex was a party to the ERR arbitration, whether Methanex had standing to challenge the award on natural justice grounds, and assuming Methanex does have standing to seek review, whether it has an arguable case based on its allegation of breach of the rules of natural justice. The Court concluded that Methanex was not a party to the ERR arbitration, that it did not have standing to challenge the award on natural justice grounds, and that assuming it did have standing, it did not have an arguable case based on its allegation of breach of the rules of natural justice. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed with costs.