{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant's supplementary heads of argument should be admitted","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Filed day before hearing"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant is challenging the wrong (superseded) award","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"November award corrected by consent to December award"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitral award should be registered","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant opposes registration on public policy grounds"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the award violates public policy","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant argues arbitrator rewrote contract"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The parties entered into a tribute agreement for granite mining with monthly royalty payments. Disputes arose over royalty payments adjusted for inflation, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator found material breach by Quarrying Enterprises, cancelled the agreement, and ordered payment and eviction. Quarrying sought to set aside the award while Stonezim sought registration.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases