Minter Ellison review the 2017 decision from Queensland in Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Mio Art Pty Ltd  QSC 87, where the Court held that a purchaser had not made out a case to set aside the relevant awards under s.34 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013, holding that despite the purchaser’s complaints about how the arbitrator had valued the purchase price of the shares, the arbitrator had not decided matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. The authors note that the case provides clarity on the status of arbitral awards under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) and confirms that Queensland is in line with other jurisdictions when reviewing arbitral awards.
About Phillip Rompotis
Phillip practices as a barrister and arbitrator in Hong Kong. He has over 25 years’ litigation and arbitration experience in commercial disputes relating to construction & engineering, financial services, joint venture & shareholders agreements, technology, trusts, property and landlord & tenant. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators, and a member of various lists/panels of arbitrators.View