Favish (also known as Shraga) Vidavsky v Body Corporate of Sunhill Villas

The appellant, a sectional title unit owner, referred a dispute with the respondent body corporate concerning its administration of the property to arbitration under the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965, as incorporated via the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 and the Management Rules. The arbitrator set a hearing date and purportedly notified the respondent by registered post. The respondent did not attend the arbitration, and the arbitrator proceeded in its absence, making an award in favour of the appellant. Evidence later showed that the respondent only collected the registered notice on the afternoon of the day of the hearing, after the arbitration had already taken place. The appellant sought to have the award made an order of court under s 31(1) of the Arbitration Act. The respondent opposed this on the basis that it had not received reasonable notice of the arbitration hearing.

The appeal was dismissed. The application to make the arbitration award an order of court was correctly refused. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of preparing the appeal record, but otherwise the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case is a leading authority on the effect of lack of notice and jurisdiction in South African arbitration law. It clarifies that an arbitration award made without compliance with the peremptory requirements of s 15(2) of the Arbitration Act is a nullity, not merely voidable, and cannot be enforced under s 31. It confirms that parties may resist enforcement of a void award without first bringing an application to set it aside under s 33, reinforcing fundamental procedural fairness in arbitration proceedings.