The decision of the court was based upon section 35 (4) which asks the court to take such other action that will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. This means that where a court can distinguish between the terms of the award that are subject to being set aside from those that are not, it will then uphold that part of the award that does not disclose the grounds for a setting aside application. Section 35 (2)(a)(iv) also formed the basis of the court’s judgement because the court maintained that it would not uphold an arbitral award if the arbitrator went beyond their scope of reference when making the arbitral award.
- Section 35 (4) stipulates that courts should take such other action that will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. This means that courts will not set aside an entire award where some terms of the award were rightfully rendered within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. Courts are therefore allowed to partially set aside an award if part of the award discloses grounds for a setting aside application.
- Section 35 (2)(a)(iv) provides that an application can be set aside if an arbitrator considers matters that are beyond their scope of reference. Arbitrators should therefore be fully aware of the matters that are referred to them in the arbitration agreement to prevent rendering an award that may be subject to a setting aside application.