Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Mio Art Pty Ltd

[2018] QCA 39

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Arbitration
2. › Conduct of arbitral proceedings
3. › Powers, duties and discretion of arbitrator
4. › Duty to observe rules of natural justice
5. › Whether arbitrator afforded party reasonable opportunity to present case
6. › Arbitrator raising own methodological approach not pleaded by parties
7. › Whether failure to put finding to expert witnesses constituted denial of procedural fairness
8. › Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld), ss 18, 34(2)(a)(ii), 34(2)(b)(ii)
1. Arbitration
2. › Setting aside arbitral award
3. › Grounds for setting aside
4. › Public policy of the State
5. › Whether breach of natural justice in arbitration engages public policy ground
6. › Narrow construction of public policy in arbitration context
7. › Whether real unfairness or real practical injustice demonstrated
8. › Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld), s 34(2)(b)(ii)
1. Arbitration
2. › Conduct of arbitral proceedings
3. › Arbitrator's approach to evidence
4. › Whether arbitrator entitled to adopt own approach to testing valuation inputs
5. › Whether arbitrator bound to adopt position of one party or the other
6. › Forensic choices by parties in arbitration

Quick Take

An arbitral award will not be set aside for denial of procedural fairness where the arbitrator raised a novel methodological point with the parties over multiple hearings, the party understood the point and chose to respond by legal submissions rather than recalling witnesses or adducing further evidence. A party's forensic choice not to seek to reopen its case when given the opportunity to do so will preclude a later complaint of procedural unfairness. The 'real unfairness or real practical injustice' standard from TCL applies to domestic arbitrations under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld).