Reasonable notice in arbitration upheld where communicated and no proven prejudice; request for undertakings did not nullify award.

Where an arbitration agreement vested procedural control in the arbitrator, directions fixing dates, time and place and repeated communications constituted reasonable notice to enable participation; absent a request for adjournment or proof of specific prejudice, non-attendance did not vitiate the award, so the award stood. Separately, a post hoc request for letters undertaking not to challenge the award, made in a complex family arbitration and not acted upon, did not by itself establish misconduct or nullify the award. Appeals restoring the award were allowed on these grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a reasonable notice was given by the arbitrator to an objector so as to comply with principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether the arbitrator's request for letters undertaking not to challenge the award vitiated the award.

Issue (i): Whether the notice and procedural directions issued by the arbitrator constituted reasonable notice to enable participation and whether any failure to attend resulted in prejudice warranting setting aside the award.

Analysis: The arbitration agreement authorised the arbitrator to fix procedure, require attendance, and treat ten days as reasonable time. Documentary minutes and correspondence show repeated notices and opportunities to attend, including a circular calling for attendance at specified dates and a subsequent telegram. The legal standard requires that a party be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to present case, but applicability depends on facts and whether non-compliance caused real prejudice. Where the arbitrator manages hearings pursuant to agreed procedure, directions as to date, time and place may satisfy notice requirements. An absent party who had prior participation, who received notice, and who does not request adjournment or show inability to attend must demonstrate concrete prejudice beyond mere absence.

Conclusion: The notice and procedural steps taken by the arbitrator constituted reasonable notice and did not deny a fair opportunity; in the absence of proven prejudice the award is not vitiated on this ground. (Conclusion in favour of Appellant)

Issue (ii): Whether soliciting letters from parties stating they would not challenge the award rendered the award a nullity.

Analysis: The request for letters was made in the particular context of complex, long running family disputes and an arbitration agreement granting wide procedural powers to the arbitrator. The alleged solicitation did not result in execution of such letters and there is no established prejudice shown from the request alone. Independent misconduct must be shown to have affected rights; absent material prejudice or executed undertakings, the procedural act of seeking such letters does not automatically annul the award.

Conclusion: The arbitrator's request for letters did not vitiate the award in the circumstances; no nullity is established. (Conclusion in favour of Appellant)

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeed on the grounds considered; the impugned judgment setting aside the arbitration award is set aside and the award is made rule of the court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an arbitration agreement confers procedural control on the arbitrator, directions fixing date, time and place constitute reasonable notice if communicated and absent specific proven prejudice by non-attendance, an award will not be set aside for lack of notice; a mere request for post hoc undertakings not acted upon does not invalidate an award.

---