On appeal from a Deputy President under s 353, the Court of Appeal will not treat the existence of factual error by the arbitrator as a jurisdictional fact to be determined afresh; it is sufficient that the Deputy President's conclusions were reasonably open. Where the Deputy President properly identifies error on the sole issue in dispute, the Deputy President may form his own conclusion on that issue without conducting a prohibited review or new hearing under s 352(5). An arbitrator's failure to address conflicting medical evidence and to make express findings on critical factual issues constitutes both error of fact and error of law (inadequate reasons).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 30 later cases that cite this judgment.