Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST VIC 8007 AUSTRALIA
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY NSW 2001 AUSTRALIA
Telephone: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3709 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 2600
Facsimile: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3217 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 3044
Email:adr@arbitrator.com.au Internet:http://www.arbitrator.com.au

User Tools

Site Tools


enforcement_of_an_arbitration_clause

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
enforcement_of_an_arbitration_clause [2015/02/26 22:02]
steve
enforcement_of_an_arbitration_clause [2017/07/30 18:00] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Enforcement of an Arbitration Clause ====== ====== Enforcement of an Arbitration Clause ======
   * An agreement to arbitrate is in most cases enforceable. ​ Please see the cases below for more information.   * An agreement to arbitrate is in most cases enforceable. ​ Please see the cases below for more information.
-====== Related Material ​======+===== Related Material =====
   * [[enforcement_of_an_expert_determination_clause|Enforcement of an expert determination clause]]   * [[enforcement_of_an_expert_determination_clause|Enforcement of an expert determination clause]]
   * [[Anti-suit injunction]]   * [[Anti-suit injunction]]
-====== Legislation ​======+===== Legislation =====
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​nsw/​consol_act/​caa2010219/​s16.html|Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s16 - Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction]]   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​nsw/​consol_act/​caa2010219/​s16.html|Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s16 - Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction]]
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​consol_act/​caa1984219/​s42.html|Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (VIC), s42 - Power to set aside award]]   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​consol_act/​caa1984219/​s42.html|Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (VIC), s42 - Power to set aside award]]
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​consol_act/​sca1986183/​s30.html|Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s30 - Power to stay proceedings]]   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​consol_act/​sca1986183/​s30.html|Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s30 - Power to stay proceedings]]
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​act/​consol_act/​caa1986219/​s53.html|Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 (ACT), s53 - Power to stay court proceedings]] ​   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​act/​consol_act/​caa1986219/​s53.html|Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 (ACT), s53 - Power to stay court proceedings]] ​
-====== Cases ===== +===== Cases ==== 
-===== 2014 ======+==== 2017 ==== 
 +  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​nsw/​NSWSC/​2017/​470.html|In the matter of Infinite Plus Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 470]] 
 +==== 2016 ==== 
 +  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​wa/​WASC/​2015/​458.html|Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd v Samsung]](([2015] WASC 458)) 
 +    * This proceeding involves the determination of a matter, whether the Condition Precedent in cl 2.1 of the Deed was satisfied and whether the Deed has terminated, that, in pursuance of the agreement in cl 8.4(b) of the Deed, is capable of settlement by arbitration. The proceeding must be stayed and the parties referred to arbitration. 
 +==== 2015 ==== 
 +  * [[John Holland Pty Limited v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd]](([2015] NSWSC 451)) 
 +==== 2014 ===== 
 +  * [[nearmap v Spookfish|nearmap Ltd v Spookfish Pty Ltd]] (([2014] NSWSC 1790))
   * [[Andent v Thornhill Machine Tools Australia|Andent Pty Ltd v Thornhill Machine Tools Australia Pty Ltd]] (([2014] VSC 647))   * [[Andent v Thornhill Machine Tools Australia|Andent Pty Ltd v Thornhill Machine Tools Australia Pty Ltd]] (([2014] VSC 647))
   * [[William Hare UAE LLC v Aircraft Support Industries Pty Ltd]] (([2014] NSWSC 1403))   * [[William Hare UAE LLC v Aircraft Support Industries Pty Ltd]] (([2014] NSWSC 1403))
   * [[Brazis v Rosati|Brazis & Ors v Rosati & Ors]] (([2014] VSCA 264))   * [[Brazis v Rosati|Brazis & Ors v Rosati & Ors]] (([2014] VSCA 264))
   * [[Pipeline Services WA v ATCO Gas Australia|Pipeline Services WA Pty Ltd v ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd]] (([2014] WASC 10))   * [[Pipeline Services WA v ATCO Gas Australia|Pipeline Services WA Pty Ltd v ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd]] (([2014] WASC 10))
-===== 2013 ======+==== 2013 =====
   * [[Flint Ink NZ v Huhtamaki Australia|Flint Ink NZ Limited v Huhtamaki Australia Pty Ltd & Anor]] (([2013] VSCA 381))   * [[Flint Ink NZ v Huhtamaki Australia|Flint Ink NZ Limited v Huhtamaki Australia Pty Ltd & Anor]] (([2013] VSCA 381))
   * [[Subway Systems Australia v Ireland]] (([2013] VSC 550))   * [[Subway Systems Australia v Ireland]] (([2013] VSC 550))
   * [[Sedgman South Africa v Discovery Copper Botswana|Sedgman South Africa (Pty) Limited & Ors v Discovery Copper Botswana (Pty) Limited]] (([2013] QSC 105))   * [[Sedgman South Africa v Discovery Copper Botswana|Sedgman South Africa (Pty) Limited & Ors v Discovery Copper Botswana (Pty) Limited]] (([2013] QSC 105))
   * [[Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant|Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP]] (([2013] UKSC 35))   * [[Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant|Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP]] (([2013] UKSC 35))
-===== 2012 ======+==== 2012 =====
  
   * [[Interserve Industrial Services v ZRE Katowice|Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v ZRE Katowice SA]] (([2012] EWHC 3205 (TCC) ))   * [[Interserve Industrial Services v ZRE Katowice|Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v ZRE Katowice SA]] (([2012] EWHC 3205 (TCC) ))
Line 39: Line 47:
   * [[M & I Samaras v John Holland|M & I Samaras Pty Ltd (No 1) v John Holland Pty Ltd]] (([2012] VSC 98))   * [[M & I Samaras v John Holland|M & I Samaras Pty Ltd (No 1) v John Holland Pty Ltd]] (([2012] VSC 98))
     * An example of an optional arbitration clause and delays potentially caused by complying with the agreed dispute resolution procedures     * An example of an optional arbitration clause and delays potentially caused by complying with the agreed dispute resolution procedures
-===== 2011 =====+==== 2011 ====
  
   * [[Sapphire (SA) v Barry Smith Grains|Sapphire (SA) Pty Ltd (t/as River City Grain) v Barry Smith Grains Pty Ltd (in liq)]](( [2011] NSWSC 1451))   * [[Sapphire (SA) v Barry Smith Grains|Sapphire (SA) Pty Ltd (t/as River City Grain) v Barry Smith Grains Pty Ltd (in liq)]](( [2011] NSWSC 1451))
Line 63: Line 71:
     * This is an application by the defendant, Origin, for the stay of these proceedings under s 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (the CA Act 2010)     * This is an application by the defendant, Origin, for the stay of these proceedings under s 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (the CA Act 2010)
     * Origin'​s motion filed on 17 February 2011 should be dismissed with costs     * Origin'​s motion filed on 17 February 2011 should be dismissed with costs
-===== 2010 =====+==== 2010 ====
   * [[AED|AED Oil Limited v Puffin FPSO Limited]]   * [[AED|AED Oil Limited v Puffin FPSO Limited]]
   * [[Gilgandra|Gilgandra Marketing Co-Operative Limited v Australian Commodities & Marketing Pty Ltd & Anor]]   * [[Gilgandra|Gilgandra Marketing Co-Operative Limited v Australian Commodities & Marketing Pty Ltd & Anor]]
-==== AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC ====+=== AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC ===
   * [[AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant|AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC]](([2011] EWCA Civ 647)) Rix LJ, Wilson LJ, Burnton LJ   * [[AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant|AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC]](([2011] EWCA Civ 647)) Rix LJ, Wilson LJ, Burnton LJ
     * Lord Collins cites from the DTI Departmental Advisory Committee in its February 1994 report on a draft Arbitration Bill (the "​Saville Report"​),​ records the statutory position now accomplished (principally by sections 30, 32 and 67), and continues:     * Lord Collins cites from the DTI Departmental Advisory Committee in its February 1994 report on a draft Arbitration Bill (the "​Saville Report"​),​ records the statutory position now accomplished (principally by sections 30, 32 and 67), and continues:
Line 101: Line 109:
     * Moreover in some cases, what is sought from the court is an interim injunction, which is among the subject-matters of section 44, and in other cases what is sought is a final injunction, which is not within section 44 but, subject to contrary agreement by the parties, may be within the powers of an arbitral tribunal in a final award ((see section 48 of the AA 1996)).     * Moreover in some cases, what is sought from the court is an interim injunction, which is among the subject-matters of section 44, and in other cases what is sought is a final injunction, which is not within section 44 but, subject to contrary agreement by the parties, may be within the powers of an arbitral tribunal in a final award ((see section 48 of the AA 1996)).
     * Moreover, a distinction may have to be made between a declaration as to the existence or effectiveness of an arbitration agreement about which parties are in dispute, which is a form of final relief as to the parties'​ legal rights, and an anti-suit injunction which, at any rate in its interim form, is only intended to hold the ring until some tribunal, whether it is the court itself at some later date, or an arbitral tribunal, can grapple with the merits of the parties'​ dispute.     * Moreover, a distinction may have to be made between a declaration as to the existence or effectiveness of an arbitration agreement about which parties are in dispute, which is a form of final relief as to the parties'​ legal rights, and an anti-suit injunction which, at any rate in its interim form, is only intended to hold the ring until some tribunal, whether it is the court itself at some later date, or an arbitral tribunal, can grapple with the merits of the parties'​ dispute.
-==== Oakton Services Pty Ltd v Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd ====+=== Oakton Services Pty Ltd v Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd ===
   *  [[Oakton Services v Tenix Solutions IMES|Oakton Services Pty Ltd v Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd]]((Our [[are_there_any_reported_decisions_of_your_mr_white|Steve White]] did all the preparatory arbitration work for Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd for over 12 months including running the dispute process the subject of this reported decision.))(([2010] VSC 176))    *  [[Oakton Services v Tenix Solutions IMES|Oakton Services Pty Ltd v Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd]]((Our [[are_there_any_reported_decisions_of_your_mr_white|Steve White]] did all the preparatory arbitration work for Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd for over 12 months including running the dispute process the subject of this reported decision.))(([2010] VSC 176)) 
-===== 2009 =====+==== 2009 ====
   * [[Tri-MG Intra Asia Airlines v Norse Air Charter|PT Tri-MG Intra Asia Airlines v Norse Air Charter Limited]] (([2009] SGHC 13))   * [[Tri-MG Intra Asia Airlines v Norse Air Charter|PT Tri-MG Intra Asia Airlines v Norse Air Charter Limited]] (([2009] SGHC 13))
   * [[castel_electronics_v_tcl_air_conditioner_zhongshan|TCL Airconditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd]](([2009] VSC 553))   * [[castel_electronics_v_tcl_air_conditioner_zhongshan|TCL Airconditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd]](([2009] VSC 553))
Line 122: Line 130:
     * The case also involved the enforcement of a [[peremptory order]].     * The case also involved the enforcement of a [[peremptory order]].
     * The order was granted together with a freezing order.     * The order was granted together with a freezing order.
-===== 2008 =====+==== 2008 ====
   * Ace Capital Ltd v CMS Energy Corporation(([2008] EWHC 1843))   * Ace Capital Ltd v CMS Energy Corporation(([2008] EWHC 1843))
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2008/​169.html|Electra Air Conditioning BV v Seeley International Pty Ltd]](([2008] FCAFC 169))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2008/​169.html|Electra Air Conditioning BV v Seeley International Pty Ltd]](([2008] FCAFC 169))
Line 140: Line 148:
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​wa/​WASCA/​2008/​110.html|Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd v Paramount (WA) Ltd]] (([2008] WASCA 110 at [43]))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​wa/​WASCA/​2008/​110.html|Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd v Paramount (WA) Ltd]] (([2008] WASCA 110 at [43]))
     * where a party to an arbitration agreement makes the same claim against both the other party to the arbitration agreement and a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement – with the result that, so far as it involves the latter, the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration – it will generally be equally difficult to ascribe to the parties to the arbitration agreement an intention that in such an event the dispute should be fragmented and that the liability of the party to the arbitration agreement and that of the third party respectively should be determined in different forums     * where a party to an arbitration agreement makes the same claim against both the other party to the arbitration agreement and a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement – with the result that, so far as it involves the latter, the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration – it will generally be equally difficult to ascribe to the parties to the arbitration agreement an intention that in such an event the dispute should be fragmented and that the liability of the party to the arbitration agreement and that of the third party respectively should be determined in different forums
-===== 2006 =====+==== 2006 ====
   * HMI Casualty & General Insurance Limited (in liq) v RJ Wallace & Ors (( (2006) 204 FLR 297))   * HMI Casualty & General Insurance Limited (in liq) v RJ Wallace & Ors (( (2006) 204 FLR 297))
     * Option to arbitrate or litigate     * Option to arbitrate or litigate
Line 158: Line 166:
     * If Australian commercial parties desire Australian dispute resolution clauses they should bargain for them     * If Australian commercial parties desire Australian dispute resolution clauses they should bargain for them
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​vic/​VSC/​2006/​175.html|Transfield Philippines Inc & Ors v Pacific Hydro Ltd and Ors]](( [2006] VSC 175 (at [87]) ))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​vic/​VSC/​2006/​175.html|Transfield Philippines Inc & Ors v Pacific Hydro Ltd and Ors]](( [2006] VSC 175 (at [87]) ))
-===== 2004 =====+==== 2004 ====
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2004/​706.html|Alstom Power Ltd v Eraring Energy]] (([2004] FCA 706 at [6]))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2004/​706.html|Alstom Power Ltd v Eraring Energy]] (([2004] FCA 706 at [6]))
-===== 2002 =====+==== 2002 ====
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​nsw/​NSWSC/​2002/​896.html|ACD Tridon v Tridon Australia]] (([2002] NSWSC 896))  Austin J   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​nsw/​NSWSC/​2002/​896.html|ACD Tridon v Tridon Australia]] (([2002] NSWSC 896))  Austin J
     * I accept, as well, that public policy considerations operate against referring to arbitration a determination to wind up a company on the grounds upon which a court may order that a company be wound up.      * I accept, as well, that public policy considerations operate against referring to arbitration a determination to wind up a company on the grounds upon which a court may order that a company be wound up. 
Line 169: Line 177:
     * Specifically,​ the public policy considerations held by Warren J((http://​www.arbitrator.com.au/​doku.php?​id=enforcement_of_an_expert_determination_clause#​cases))(( A Best Floor Sanding Party Ltd))to be applicable to a disputed claim to wind up a company do not seem to me to prevent the parties from referring to arbitration a claim for some merely inter partes relief under the oppression provisions of the Corporations Act, or for access to corporate information under s 247A.      * Specifically,​ the public policy considerations held by Warren J((http://​www.arbitrator.com.au/​doku.php?​id=enforcement_of_an_expert_determination_clause#​cases))(( A Best Floor Sanding Party Ltd))to be applicable to a disputed claim to wind up a company do not seem to me to prevent the parties from referring to arbitration a claim for some merely inter partes relief under the oppression provisions of the Corporations Act, or for access to corporate information under s 247A. 
     * However, the "in rem" nature of an order for rectification of the share register of a company may prevent reference of that power to an arbitrator."​     * However, the "in rem" nature of an order for rectification of the share register of a company may prevent reference of that power to an arbitrator."​
-===== 2001 =====+==== 2001 ====
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2001/​74.html|February 14, 2001 - Timic v Hammock]] (([2001] FCA 74))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2001/​74.html|February 14, 2001 - Timic v Hammock]] (([2001] FCA 74))
-===== 2000 =====+==== 2000 ====
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​nsw/​NSWIRComm/​2000/​136.html|Metrocall Inc v Electronic Tracking Systems Pty Ltd]](((2000) 52 NSWLR 1 (at 21;  [63]) )):   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​nsw/​NSWIRComm/​2000/​136.html|Metrocall Inc v Electronic Tracking Systems Pty Ltd]](((2000) 52 NSWLR 1 (at 21;  [63]) )):
-===== 1998 =====+==== 1998 ====
   * Hi-Fert Pty Ltd v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc (No 5)(((1998) 90 FCR 1))   * Hi-Fert Pty Ltd v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc (No 5)(((1998) 90 FCR 1))
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1998/​1485.html|Hi-Fert Pty Ltd & Anor v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc & Anor]] ((([1998] FCA 1485))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1998/​1485.html|Hi-Fert Pty Ltd & Anor v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc & Anor]] ((([1998] FCA 1485))
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1998/​558.html|Hi-Fert Pty Ltd & Anor v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc & Anor]] (([1998] FCA 558))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1998/​558.html|Hi-Fert Pty Ltd & Anor v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc & Anor]] (([1998] FCA 558))
-===== 1996 =====+==== 1996 ====
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1996/​1059.html| December 4, 1996 - Hi-Fert Pty Ltd & Anor v Kuikiang Maritime Carriers Inc & Anor]](([1996] FCA 1059))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1996/​1059.html| December 4, 1996 - Hi-Fert Pty Ltd & Anor v Kuikiang Maritime Carriers Inc & Anor]](([1996] FCA 1059))
   * [[Francis|Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd]] (((1996) 39 NSWLR 160))   * [[Francis|Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd]] (((1996) 39 NSWLR 160))
-===== 1991 =====+==== 1991 ====
   * IBM Australia Ltd v National Distribution Services Ltd(((1991) 22 NSWLR 466))    * IBM Australia Ltd v National Distribution Services Ltd(((1991) 22 NSWLR 466)) 
     * From the foregoing trend of authority, both in Australian and overseas courts, it can be seen that an arbitration clause, expressed in the language of the clause here under consideration,​ is not to be narrowly construed.     * From the foregoing trend of authority, both in Australian and overseas courts, it can be seen that an arbitration clause, expressed in the language of the clause here under consideration,​ is not to be narrowly construed.
Line 187: Line 195:
     * That question is whether the misrepresentations alleged are `related to this agreement or the breach thereof'​. ​     * That question is whether the misrepresentations alleged are `related to this agreement or the breach thereof'​. ​
     * It is enough to say that, in this case, it was open to Rogers CJ Comm Div to determine that the relationship was made out on the pleadings     * It is enough to say that, in this case, it was open to Rogers CJ Comm Div to determine that the relationship was made out on the pleadings
-===== 1990 =====+==== 1990 ====
    * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​1990/​8.html|Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O’Brien]](((1990) 169 CLR 332 (at 350) ))    * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​1990/​8.html|Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O’Brien]](((1990) 169 CLR 332 (at 350) ))
      ​* ​    In the context of s 7(2), the expression ‘matter ... capable of settlement by arbitration’ may, but does not necessarily,​ mean the whole matter in controversy in the court proceedings.  ​      ​* ​    In the context of s 7(2), the expression ‘matter ... capable of settlement by arbitration’ may, but does not necessarily,​ mean the whole matter in controversy in the court proceedings.  ​
Line 193: Line 201:
      * Even so, the expression ‘matter ... capable of settlement by arbitration’ indicates something more than a mere issue which might fall for decision in the court proceedings or might fall for decision in arbitral proceedings if they were instituted ((Flakt [1979] 2 N.S.W.L.R., at p 250)).      * Even so, the expression ‘matter ... capable of settlement by arbitration’ indicates something more than a mere issue which might fall for decision in the court proceedings or might fall for decision in arbitral proceedings if they were instituted ((Flakt [1979] 2 N.S.W.L.R., at p 250)).
      * It requires that there be some subject matter, some right or liability in controversy which, if not co-extensive with the subject matter in controversy in the court proceedings,​ is at least susceptible of settlement as a discrete controversy.      * It requires that there be some subject matter, some right or liability in controversy which, if not co-extensive with the subject matter in controversy in the court proceedings,​ is at least susceptible of settlement as a discrete controversy.
-===== 1986 =====+==== 1986 ====
   * AT & T Technologies Inc v Communications Workers of America, 475 US 643 (1986), 650, the United States Supreme Court said that, in the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration,​ only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration could prevail.   * AT & T Technologies Inc v Communications Workers of America, 475 US 643 (1986), 650, the United States Supreme Court said that, in the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration,​ only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration could prevail.
-===== 1985 =====+==== 1985 ====
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1985/​369.html|Allergan Pharmaceuticals Inc and Anor v Bausch & Lomb Inc and Anor]](([1985] FCA 369))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1985/​369.html|Allergan Pharmaceuticals Inc and Anor v Bausch & Lomb Inc and Anor]](([1985] FCA 369))
     * contraventions of sections of the Act “arise exclusively from the statutory provisions themselves” and not from any contractual relationship between the parties     * contraventions of sections of the Act “arise exclusively from the statutory provisions themselves” and not from any contractual relationship between the parties
-===== 1979 =====+==== 1979 ====
   * Flakt Australia Ltd v Wilkens & Davies Construction Co Ltd(([1979] 2 NSWLR 243 (at 245, 250) ))   * Flakt Australia Ltd v Wilkens & Davies Construction Co Ltd(([1979] 2 NSWLR 243 (at 245, 250) ))
     * In my opinion, the word ‘matter’ in s 7(2)(b) denotes any claim for relief of a kind proper for determination in a court. ​     * In my opinion, the word ‘matter’ in s 7(2)(b) denotes any claim for relief of a kind proper for determination in a court. ​
     * It does not include every issue which would, or might, arise for decision in the course of the determination of such a claim.     * It does not include every issue which would, or might, arise for decision in the course of the determination of such a claim.
-===== 1950 =====+==== 1950 ====
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​1950/​43.html|November 8, 1950 - Huddart Parker Ltd v Ship "Mill Hill"​]](([1950] HCA 43))   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​1950/​43.html|November 8, 1950 - Huddart Parker Ltd v Ship "Mill Hill"​]](([1950] HCA 43))
       * But the courts begin with the fact that there is a special contract between the parties to refer, and therefore ​       * But the courts begin with the fact that there is a special contract between the parties to refer, and therefore ​
         * consider the circumstances of a case with a strong bias in favour of maintaining the special bargain((in the language of Lord Moulton in Bristol Corporation v John Hard & Co)) and          * consider the circumstances of a case with a strong bias in favour of maintaining the special bargain((in the language of Lord Moulton in Bristol Corporation v John Hard & Co)) and 
         * a guiding principle on one side and a very natural and proper one, is that parties who have made a contract should keep it.((Scrutton LJ said in Metropolitan Tunnel and Public Works Ltd v London Electric Railway Co))         * a guiding principle on one side and a very natural and proper one, is that parties who have made a contract should keep it.((Scrutton LJ said in Metropolitan Tunnel and Public Works Ltd v London Electric Railway Co))

  © White SW Computer Law 1994-2019. ABN 94 669 684 644. All Rights Reserved.
  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
  This website is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for proper legal advice.
  Readers should make their own enquiries and seek appropriate legal advice.
  For legal advice please email wcl@computerlaw.com.au