[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

4 Introduction

102 WE RAISED TWO ISSUES in this area for consideration in our preliminary paper. First, we questioned whether it was necessary for the Act to set out the grounds on which the High Court could grant leave to appeal against an arbitral award. We also inquired as to what those grounds should be.¹⁵⁴

103 With regard to the guidelines for leave to appeal, our questions were posed against the backdrop of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Gold and Resource Developments (NZ) Ltd v Doug Hood Ltd.¹⁵⁵ Prior to that decision there had been conflicting authority as to the test that a court should apply in determining whether to grant leave, and this led to uncertainty. The court attempted to overcome this uncertainty by setting out eight guidelines.

104 The second question raised a discrete issue. Generally, leave to appeal against an award of an arbitral tribunal will only be granted on questions of law.¹⁵⁶ Findings of fact made by an arbitral tribunal are usually regarded as conclusive. But, it is uncertain whether an allegation that there was no, or insufficient, evidence to support a particular finding of fact should be regarded as a question of law for the purposes of clause 5(1)(c) of the Second Schedule to the Act. We sought submissions on whether the statute should define when, if ever, a perverse finding of fact should be regarded as an error of law for the purposes of the Act.¹⁵⁷

105 In chapter 5 we address the question of whether it is necessary for the Act to specify grounds on which the court might grant leave to appeal. In chapter 6 we address the question whether a perverse finding of fact can, or should, amount to an error of law.