Summary
An arbitrator found that the department’s failure to facilitate unloading and compaction prevented timely earthwork and made termination unlawful. The Court restored the reasoned award after the High Court had substituted its own factual and contractual assessment, holding that the arbitrator’s view was at least plausible.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could displace a supported arbitral finding on reciprocal construction obligations through reappreciation of evidence.
Held
- The nature of the contracted work implied a usable unloading area within the paid transport distance, and the contractor’s performance depended on the department’s facilitation and compaction. The arbitrator’s assessment of reciprocal obligations and unlawful termination was supported and at least plausible. (¶ 6–11)
- An award challenge does not authorize ordinary appellate reassessment of evidence. A court cannot invoke public policy merely to substitute what it considers fair on the facts; the reasoned award was subject to interference only on the limited statutory grounds. (¶ 12–15)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court order set aside and enforcement of the arbitral award in its entirety upheld.