Narayanasamy v VM (Qld) Pty Ltd

[2012] QDC 125

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 1229 of 2012

KITCHAPPA NARAYANASAMY & ANOTHER	Applicant
and
VM (QLD) PTY LTD	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 18/04/2012

ORDER

CATCHWORDS
Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 s 33

No reason shown by respondent why discretion to grant leave to enforce an arbitrator's award as a judgement of the court should not be exercised
HIS HONOUR: I'll make orders in terms of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the originating application. The director of the respondent, Mr Manickam, has appeared to oppose this application seeking leave under section 33 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 for enforcement of an arbitrator's award as a judgment of the court and for entry of judgment in terms of the arbitrator's award by simply picking up the language of the section which provides the means by which an arbitrator's award in this State may be made enforceable.

The submissions the court has heard against making the order are essentially revisiting the issues which the arbitrator determined in favour of the applicants by making a declaration that lease arrangements between the parties had come to an end and that the applicants were entitled to their costs of the arbitration. It seems to me the court, in circumstances where there's nothing casting doubt on the arbitrator's determination, this being a matter for other proceedings, has no real alternative but to exercise the discretion granted by the section in the way the applicants seek. Those are the orders.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Narayanasamy v VM (Qld) Pty Ltd involves the applicants, Kitchappa Narayanasamy and another party, seeking enforcement of an arbitrator’s award against the respondent, VM (Qld) Pty Ltd. The dispute revolves around the enforcement of an arbitration award under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990, specifically seeking leave to enforce the award as a judgment of the court and for entry of judgment in accordance with the award. The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland by Judge Robin QC.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had provided sufficient grounds to oppose the enforcement of the arbitrator's award. The respondent, represented by Mr Manickam, contested the application by merely referencing the statutory provision without presenting any substantive reasons for opposing the enforcement of the award. The court was required to determine whether the respondent had met the threshold for opposing the enforcement of the award as stipulated under section 33 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990.

In delivering the judgment, Judge Robin QC found that the respondent had not provided any valid reason to oppose the enforcement of the arbitrator's award. The arbitrator had previously ruled in favour of the applicants, declaring that the lease arrangements between the parties had ended and that the applicants were entitled to their costs of the arbitration. Judge Robin QC concluded that, in the absence of any valid reason to doubt the arbitrator’s determination, the court had no alternative but to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants. The court granted leave for the enforcement of the arbitrator's award as a judgment of the court and ordered the entry of judgment in accordance with the terms of the award.

The final orders made by the court were in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the originating application, granting leave to enforce the arbitrator’s award as a judgment of the court and directing the entry of judgment in accordance with the award.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established