Roberson et Al v Wallroff et Al

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Shanks, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 February 2000
• Court: High Court (Belize)
• Docket Number: 491 and 492 of 1999
• Date: 14 February 2000

High Court

Shanks, J.

491 and 492 of 1999

Roberson et al

and

Wallroff et al

Appearances:

Mr. Wilfred Elrington, S.C. for the claimants.

Mr. Denys Barrow, S.C. for the respondents.

Arbitration - Agreement for the sale of land — Arbitral award against claimants — Arbitrator rejected claimant's counterclaim for loss suffered as a result of respondent's failure to give good marketable title — Application to set aside the arbitral award — Whether the arbitrator made errors of law apparent on the face of her reasons in rejecting the counterclaim — Finding that the reasons disclosed by the arbitrator did not show a clear error of law or reason why they should be disturbed — Application dismissed — Award remitted to arbitrator for consideration of certain matters raised by claimant.

Shanks, J.

1 These applications concern an arbitration award made by Ms. Lisa Shoman dated 2 November, 1999. Ms. Shoman also issued a statement of reasons on 7 January, 2000 to which, it is agreed on all sides, I can have regard in deciding them. The claimants in the arbitration, the Robersons and McDermotts, sold their shares in Maya Ranch Ltd. to the respondents, the Wallroffs, under an agreement dated 15 September, 1995. That agreement provided for payment of $500,000 US dollars “up front” followed by 52 six-monthly installments of US $87,407.50 starting 15 June, 1996. The first few installments were not paid and arbitration proceedings were begun. The respondents to the arbitration counterclaimed inter alia for damages for, breach of clause 6.1.10 of the share sale agreement which provided that the claimants warranted that the Company had good marketable title to the real property described in the Second Schedule to the agreement. The real property in question in these proceedings comprised a portion of 570 acres at the northern part of Black Rock Estate which was part of the land described in the Second Schedule. The counterclaim included, by paragraph 12, a claim for US $50,173 costs incurred in making good title to that land and, by paragraph 13, a claim for US $4 ¹/₂ million loss arising from the fact that the respondents were unable to implement certain development projects for over two years because of the failure to give good marketable title to the 570 acres.

2 Ms. Shoman rejected this part of the respondents' counterclaim because she found both no breach and no damage. Mr. Barrow, on behalf of the respondents, now applies to set aside her award on the basis that she made errors of law apparent on the face of her reasons it rejecting this counterclaim. It is common ground that I have jurisdiction to set aside the award if I find such an error; to do so, I must find that there is in the award or the reasons some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which is erroneous. It is also common ground that it is open to me to remit the award to the arbitrator with appropriate directions if that seems more appropriate and I think it must be right that if I am of the view that any error of law made no difference to the result (e.g. an error in relation to liability but none on damages) I can simply leave the award as it is.

3 It is necessary to set out some of the background before I can consider whether there has been an error of law on the face of the award. It is not in dispute that the 570 acres in question were the subject of compulsory acquisition notices in the Gazette in 1975. (There were in fact two of these notices: although Ms. Shoman only refers to one notice expressly in her award I am to take...