• President of The Master Builders and Allied Trades Association (Western Cape) 1995/6/7
• Fellow of the Association of Arbitrators (Southern Africa)
• Past Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Building.(Western Cape)
• Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Building. (U.K)
• Professional Member of The arbitration Foundation of South Africa.
• Associate of The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia
• Past Chairman of The Building Industry Bargaining Council Cape of Good Hope (2003/4/5)
• Councilor on The Building Industry Bargaining Council Cape of Good Hope (1988-2003)
• Fellow of the South African Institute of Building
• National Diploma in Building Construction (4 year course)
• National Diploma in Business Management (3 year course)
• Certificate in arbitration (1 year course)
• Higher diploma in Arbitration (2 year course)
• Member of the Building Industries Federation of South Africa(BIFSA) National    Executive Committee. (1992 to 1999)
• Member of the JBCC Technical Committee
• Member of the South African Association of Quantity Surveyors
• Chairman of the Association of Arbitrators (Western Cape)(2000/1/2)
• Over 30 years experience in the Building Industry.

In the South African Law reports (case no: 6748 / 2000) , this is what the honourabel Justice van Zyl had to say about Jonathan W. Mitchell (first respondent in the text) :

"I have carefully perused the full record of the proceedings which took place before the first respondent and am quite satisfied that he on no occasion exhibited any bias or prejudice in favour of or against either of the parties. On the contrary, his conduct throughout the proceedings was exemplary and highly professional. He allowed the parties to present their case without restrictions or limitation and took meticulous cognisance of all the evidence tendered and argument submitted to him. There is not the slightest substance in the applicant`s suggestion that he was dishonest, lacking in good faith in harbouring some or other ulterior motive."

"Despite the fact that the first respondent is not a qualified lawyer, he proved himself to be an experienced arbitrator who took into account , and demostrated an adequate understanding of all the relevant legal principles. As appears from from the reasons furnished by him for his award, he analysed the relevant evidence carefully and, to the best of his ability, applied the said legal principles to the facts thus established. Any suggestion that he was reckless, or simply careless, in doing so is quite without foundation."

(Johan Louw Konstruksie Pty Ltd v Mitchell and Another 2002 (3) SA 183E)