Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation Trading as Synergy v Woodside Energy Ltd

[2014] WASC 469

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Arbitration
2. › Commercial arbitration
3. › Appeal from arbitral award
4. › Leave to appeal
5. › Manifest error of law on the face of the award
6. › Whether error must be facile or may be complex
7. › Whether misconstruction of contract constituted manifest error
8. › Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (WA), s 38
1. Arbitration
2. › Commercial arbitration
3. › Arbitral award
4. › Adequacy of reasons
5. › Standard for reasons in arbitral awards
6. › Whether failure to provide adequate reasons constitutes error of law
7. › Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (WA), s 29
1. Arbitration
2. › Commercial arbitration
3. › Appeal from arbitral award
4. › Scope of 'the award'
5. › Documents incorporated into the award
6. › Whether entire agreement incorporated
7. › Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (WA), s 38(5)
1. Costs
2. › Special costs orders
3. › Proper construction of s 280(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA)
4. › Meaning of 'matter'
5. › Whether adjectives 'unusual difficulty, complexity or importance' qualify entire issue, dispute or controversy or individual items in costs determination

Quick Take

The 'matter' in s 280(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) which must be of unusual difficulty, complexity or importance is the whole issue, dispute or controversy before the court, not individual items in the costs determination. Edelman J's contrary approach in Pourzand is disapproved. Following Westport, the requirement for 'manifest error' on the face of an arbitral award does not exclude complex errors, and earlier formulations requiring 'swift and easy persuasion' or 'rapid recognition' are no longer good law.