The Chrysalis was trapped in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway in the course of the Iran-Iraq war, and the parties disputed the frustration of the charter contract.
Held: Mustill J set out stages for considering an appeal from an arbitration award by differentiating between points of law and of fact: ‘Starting therefore with the proposition that the court is concerned to decide, on the hearing of the appeal, whether the award can be shown to be wrong in law, how is this question to be tackled? In a case such as the present, the answer is to be found by dividing the arbitrator’s process of reasoning into three stages:
(1) The arbitrator ascertains the facts. This process includes the making of findings on any facts which are in dispute.
(2) The arbitrator ascertains the law. This process comprises not only the identification of all material rules of statute and common law, but also the identification and interpretation of the relevant parts of the contract, and the identification of those facts which must be taken into account when the decision is reached.
(3) In the light of the facts and the law so ascertained, the arbitrator reaches his decision.
In some cases, the third stage will be purely mechanical. Once the law is correctly ascertained, the decision follows inevitably from the application of it to the facts found. In other instances, however, the third stage involves an element of judgment on the part of the arbitrator. There is no uniquely ‘right’ answer to be derived from marrying the facts and the law, merely a choice of answers, none of which can be described as wrong.’
Only items at stage 2 are properly appealable: ‘The second stage of the process is the proper subject matter of an appeal under the 1979 Act. In some cases an error of law can be demonstrated by studying the way in which the arbitrator has stated the law in his reasons. It is, however, also possible to infer an error of law in those cases where a correct application of the law to the facts found would lead inevitably to one answer, whereas the arbitrator has arrived at another: and this can be so even if the arbitrator has stated the law in his reasons in a manner which appears to be correct – for the Court is then driven to assume that he did not properly understand the principles which he had stated.
Whether the third stage can ever be the proper subject of an appeal, in those cases where the making of the decision does not follow automatically from the ascertainment of the facts and the law, is not a matter upon which it is necessary to express a view in the present case. The Nema and The Evia show that where the issue is one of commercial frustration, the Court will not intervene, save only to the extent that it will have to form its own view, in order to see whether the arbitrator’s decision is out of conformity with the only correct answer or (as the case may be) lies outside the range of correct answers. This is part of the process of investigating whether the arbitrator has gone wrong at the second stage. But once the Court has concluded that a tribunal which correctly understood the law could have arrived at the same answer as the one reached by the arbitrator, the fact that the individual judge himself would have come to a different conclusion is no ground for disturbing the award.’
Judges:
Mustill J
Citations:
[1983] 1 WLR 1469, [1983] 1 Lloyds Rep 503
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Penwith District Council v VP Developments Ltd TCC 2-Nov-2007
The council sought to appeal against an interim arbitration award.
Held: Leave to appeal was refused. The application was wholly unjustified. This was an appeal on the facts dressed up as an appeal on law. . .
Cited – Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v Ene Aegiali I ComC 5-Nov-2010
No appeal on facts from award
The defendant ship owners sought to strike out the claimant’s appeal against an arbitration award to the extent that that appeal consisted of an appeal against the factual findings. The claimant argued that the parties had agreed that such an appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration, Contract
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.260257
