BAYSIDE CIVIL & DRAINAGE PTY LTD V. MARINESTAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2000] WASC 17
Supreme Court of Western Australia – 2 February 2000
FACTS
Bayside was a contractor engaged by the Marinestar to carry out earthworks on a subdivision project. The parties executed a standard contract using AS 2124-1992.
Bayside’s received two progress certificates amounting to $364,407.81 but Marinestar refused to pay the money owing for the progress certificates. Bayside issued legal proceedings and then applied for summary judgment to recover the amounts outstanding under the progress certificate.
Clause 47 of the contract dealt with dispute resolution and provided that when a dispute occurred a party was to deliver to the other a notice of dispute and subsequently continue to enforce the contract and comply with clause 41.1. Clause 41.1 required the parties to meet and attempt to resolve their dispute and if the dispute could not be resolved, then either party could refer the dispute to arbitration or litigation.
After giving a notice of dispute to Marinestar, the parties met but were unable to resolve the dispute. Bayside issued legal proceedings. Marinestar then sent a notice to Bayside referring the dispute to arbitration and contended that Bayside had elected to go to arbitration.
ISSUE
Should the court exercise its power to grant a stay of the legal proceeding or refer the matter to arbitration?
FINDINGS
…Doyles Arbitration Lawyers provides the Arbwatch, a regular newsletter, highlighting new and important developments and cases in Arbitration law.
The subject matter focusses on the Australian jurisdiction, however we also regularly highlight international arbitral cases of import or interest.
We respect your privacy. Sign up below, it’s free and you can unsubscribe at any time:
