Summary
An umpire’s award was set aside because it reopened a change-of-law issue already agreed by both arbitrators instead of deciding their limited disagreement on the subcontractor-payment exclusion. A replacement umpire was appointed by consent to decide only that contractual interaction. The Court did not itself determine the reimbursement entitlement.
Issues
- Whether the umpire could reject the claim on an issue outside the limited reference and already concluded by both arbitrators.
Held
- Both arbitrators accepted application of the change-of-law clause but differed on whether the subcontractor-payment clause barred recovery. The umpire instead rejected the agreed change-of-law premise, deciding a matter not referred to him. (¶¶ 1–3, 5)
- The passing reference to the payment-exclusion clause contained no independent reasoning or conclusion that could sustain the award. The narrow remaining issue required a fresh decision by the replacement umpire. (¶ 5)
Result
Appeal allowed and High Court judgment and umpire’s award set aside. Justice Aftab Alam appointed by consent to decide whether Clause 13.2.8 interdicted Clause 17.3, requested within three months of receiving papers. By consent, the award was to return directly to the Supreme Court.