The Court dismissed the defendant’s arguments against enforcement of a SIAC award. It found that since the defendant himself had threatened to invoke the arbitration clause, and had never challenged the authenticity of the main contract, he could not allege that the contract was forged and that as a consequence the arbitration agreement was null and void. Also, the tribunal had not exceeded its authority, as the  present plaintiff had replaced the original signatory by a deed of novation, and the record showed that the defendant had been given proper notice of the arbitration, and had received the arbitration documents.