The court considered each element of the test outlined above, finding:
-The determination of the questions would substantially affect the rights of the parties. -The questions were essentially the same issues that the judge-arbitrator had been asked to determine. -The questions were of general public importance, particularly for the insurance and reinsurance industry which expects to face further mesothelioma claims in the future. -The decision of the judge-arbitrator was open to serious doubt. There were strong arguments against the conclusions reached by the judge-arbitrator on the issues of “spiking” and contribution. -It was just and proper for the court to determine the questions, notwithstanding the importance of finality in arbitration. The parties had chosen not to exclude appeals under section 69 of the Act, and the issues raised in the appeal were important for the insurance and reinsurance industry.
Accordingly, permission to appeal was granted. seeking to settle a claim under the former. The outcome of this case turned on its particular facts, including the commercial context of maritime practice, and parties should not assume that the dispute resolution mechanism and governing law that is set out in an underlying agreement will necessarily apply to every agreement seeking to settle a claim arising under the original agreement. Parties are recommended to always document the settlement they have reached in express terms, including a governing law and dispute resolution clause.