Arbitral award upheld where belated submissions were ignored and a third-party contract could not control the dispute.

An arbitral award was challenged under Section 34 on two grounds: that the arbitrator did not consider belated written submissions and thereby denied an opportunity to defend, and that a contract between one party and a third party was ignored. The Court noted that the submissions were filed after the deadline and were not served as directed, so their non-consideration did not amount to denial of natural justice where the claim was otherwise decided on the record. It also held that a third-party contract could not govern the parties' own dispute. The award was upheld and the petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside on the ground that the claimant's written submissions were not considered, resulting in denial of opportunity to defend; (ii) whether the award was liable to be interfered with for alleged non-consideration of the contract between the petitioner and a third party.

Issue (i): whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside on the ground that the claimant's written submissions were not considered, resulting in denial of opportunity to defend.

Analysis: The petitioner was granted time to file written submissions, but it filed them beyond the deadline and did not serve them on the opposite party as directed. The written submissions were instead filed with the DIAC without intimation to the arbitrator. In these circumstances, the omission to consider those submissions did not amount to denial of an opportunity to defend, particularly when the arbitrator had otherwise examined the record and adjudicated the claims on merits.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed and the award was not liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the award was liable to be interfered with for alleged non-consideration of the contract between the petitioner and a third party.

Analysis: The contract relied upon by the petitioner was between the petitioner and a third party, who was not a party to the sub-contract dispute. The arbitrator was therefore not required to apply that agreement while determining the respondent's claims arising from the parties' own contractual relationship.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award was upheld in full and the petition under Section 34 was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award will not be set aside merely because belated written submissions filed in breach of procedural directions were not considered, and a contract to which the claimant is not a party cannot govern adjudication of disputes between the parties before the arbitrator.

---