UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (annexed to the Arbitration Act)
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Did the arbitrator exceed his authority by ruling he lacked jurisdiction over the unlawful termination and equipment claims?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The arbitration referral letters specifically limited the dispute to the outstanding invoice"}
{"issue_text":"Were the termination and equipment claims part of the referred dispute or separate disputes?","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The referral correspondence reserved rights on termination"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Mining Engineering, an Australian company providing shaft sinking services, contracted with Zimbabwean mining company Blanket Mine. After Blanket Mine terminated the contract and withheld payment of AUD$279,425.21 on the final invoice, Mining Engineering referred the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator appointed was Mr George Gapu. Mining Engineering included claims for unlawful termination damages and equipment value, but Blanket Mine objected that these fell outside the scope of the arbitration referral.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases