Gordian Runoff Limited v Westport Insurance Corporation

(2010) 267 ALR 74; [2010] NSWCA 57

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Arbitration
2. › Commercial arbitration
3. › Judicial review of awards
4. › Leave to appeal
5. › Whether application for leave and appeal should be heard concurrently
6. › Whether manifest error on face of award
7. › Whether strong evidence of error of law
8. › Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW), s 38(5)(b)
1. Arbitration
2. › Commercial arbitration
3. › The award
4. › Adequacy of arbitrators' reasons
5. › Standard of reasons required
6. › Whether arbitrators required to give reasons to standard of a judge
7. › Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW), s 29(1)(c)
8. › UNCITRAL Model Law, Art 31(2)
1. Arbitration
2. › Commercial arbitration
3. › Judicial review of awards
4. › Points of contention by respondent
5. › Whether respondent required to seek own leave to appeal
6. › Scope of phrase 'question of law arising out of an award'
7. › Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW), s 38
1. Insurance
2. › Reinsurance
3. › Statutory modification of insurance contracts
4. › Exclusion and limitation clauses
5. › Whether s 18B applies to scope of cover provisions
6. › Insurance Act 1902 (NSW), s 18B

Quick Take

Arbitrators under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW) are not required to provide reasons to the standard of a judge; the standard is that stated by Donaldson LJ in Bremer v Westzucker — setting out what happened and explaining succinctly why the decision was reached. Oil Basins Ltd v BHP Billiton Ltd should not be followed to the extent it equates the obligations. A respondent to an application for leave to appeal under s 38 who wishes to complain about questions of law arising out of the award must obtain its own leave to appeal; the leave requirement is not a mere gateway through which one party passes. Applications for leave to appeal and appeals under s 38 should ordinarily be heard separately, with the leave application first, and concurrent hearing should only occur in exceptional cases. A 'manifest error' under s 38(5)(b)(i) must be evident or obvious, not merely arguable.