LEGAL PRINCIPLE: ARBITRATION LAW – Arbitral Proceedings – Permissible Use of Arbitrator’s Expertise and Knowledge
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is clear that the arbitrator based their findings and award on the evidence before them; it is simply not correct that the arbitrator had been capricious or that they had used their judgment or skill to side-track the evidence before them with regard to the valuation of work done.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"It is clear that the arbitrator based his findings and award on the evidence before him.... It is simply not correct that the Arbitrator had been capricious or that he had used his judgment or skill to side-track the evidence before him with regard to the valuation of work done..."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Arbitrators may use their expertise and professional judgment in evaluating evidence without being capricious or guilty of misconduct. Using “judgment or skill” to assess evidence (like valuation of work) is proper arbitral function when: based on evidence presented, applying expertise to evaluate proof, and reaching reasoned conclusions. This differs from: ignoring evidence, deciding without evidential basis, or capriciously disregarding testimony. “Side-track the evidence” would mean: bypassing evidence to impose personal views, ignoring material proof, or substituting personal opinion for evidential findings. Proper use of expertise involves: evaluating evidence through professional lens, applying technical knowledge to assess proof, and making informed findings based on evidence viewed through expert understanding. This serves: utilizing arbitrators’ specialized knowledge (why parties often choose expert arbitrators), enabling informed decision-making on technical matters, and allowing arbitrators to assess evidence quality using their expertise. However, arbitrators must: base decisions on evidence, not substitute expertise for proof, and explain how expertise informed evidence assessment. The principle permits expert arbitrators to apply professional judgment to evidence without constituting misconduct.