What are the relevant questions in the context of a construction contract?

The first question in this category is whether the arbitrator erred in law “[i]n determining that a key element of a fiduciary relationship ‑ that the alleged fiduciary cannot act in their own interest but have undivided loyalty to the beneficiary ‑ cannot arise in a ‘construction setting’”. The petitioners argue that this conclusion is wrong for two reasons. First, it is said that he refused to apply “existing legal precedent, and in particular this court’s decision in Ho v. Yip”. Second, it is said that the determination of whether a fiduciary relationship exists turns on the nature of the relationship and not the category or character of the parties to it. By concluding that parties to construction contracts invariably have at least an element of self‑interest, the arbitrator erroneously focussed on the character of the parties and not the nature of the relationship.