Natural justice in arbitration requires a fair opportunity to challenge disputed documents, or a non-speaking award may fail.

An arbitrator's broad de novo authority to review and revise the Commissioner's decisions permits adjudication of claims whose quantum differs from that presented before the Commissioner, where the arbitration clause does not restrict the reference to prior evidence or arguments. However, although the Evidence Act's technical rules do not strictly govern arbitration, natural justice requires a fair opportunity to challenge contested documentary evidence. Receiving unproved documents over objection without enabling effective examination of their makers may constitute legal misconduct, even in a non-speaking award. The article states that this procedural defect requires fresh determination of the affected claims by the arbitrator.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate eight claims whose quantum differed from the claims presented to the Commissioner; (ii) Whether admission of unproved documents despite objection, without affording an effective opportunity to challenge their makers, vitiated the non-speaking arbitral award.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate eight claims whose quantum differed from the claims presented to the Commissioner.

Analysis: The arbitration clause conferred broad de novo powers upon the arbitrator to open, review and revise the Commissioner's decisions, and did not confine either party to the evidence or arguments placed before the Commissioner. The parties contested the eight claims on documentary evidence without raising this jurisdictional objection before the arbitrator. The reference covered the contractors' claims and the Corporation's counterclaims, and the award was for less than the amount originally claimed before the Commissioner. The contractual procedure before the Commissioner was not a two-tier arbitral process restricting the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide the eight claims; this issue is in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether admission of unproved documents despite objection, without affording an effective opportunity to challenge their makers, vitiated the non-speaking arbitral award.

Analysis: Although technical rules of the Evidence Act do not govern arbitration, arbitral procedure must comply with natural justice. Documents relevant to contested factual matters were received despite repeated objections without proof through competent persons and without an effective opportunity to test their authenticity, contents and evidentiary value. A non-speaking award remains open to interference where such procedural irregularity constitutes legal misconduct. The remittal was a judicial exercise of discretion because the defect required fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The award was vitiated by legal misconduct and breach of natural justice; this issue is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The award cannot stand because the procedural denial of a fair opportunity in receiving the disputed documentary material requires the eight claims to be determined afresh by the arbitrator already seized of the connected claims.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award, including a non-speaking award, is liable to be set aside where the arbitrator receives unproved material evidence over objection without affording the affected party a fair opportunity to meet it, notwithstanding that the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to arbitration.

---