{"issue_text":"Whether respondent's claim had prescribed by June 2014","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Dispute arose October 2013, referred June 2014, two-year prescription period"}
{"issue_text":"Whether order of arbitrator sounding in money was competent","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Scheme of arrangement provided for debenture payments, arbitrator ordered cash payment"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent repudiated contract by requesting terminal benefits","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Email requesting terminal benefits not on record"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent entitled to vehicle maintenance award of US$7,000","issue_type":"factual","dispositive":"partial","related_facts":"No evidence of repairs produced, arbitrator made assumptions"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondent was employed as resident director of the appellant company under an executive employment agreement from 1 September 2010. A dispute arose regarding payment of arrear salaries and terminal benefits when the respondent left employment. The appellant acknowledged owing US$113,780 but paid only US$1,500 in cash with the balance through debentures. The respondent claimed US$277,000 total outstanding.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases