Warning: Undefined array key "options" in /home/customer/www/doylesarbitrationlawyers.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro/modules/theme-builder/widgets/site-logo.php on line 123
Eastern Metropolitan Council v Four Seasons Construction - Doyles Arbitration Lawyers
Eastern Metropolitan Council v Four Seasons Construction

Eastern Metropolitan Council v Four Seasons Construction

EASTERN METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL V. FOUR SEASONS CONSTRUCTION PTY

LTD [1999] WASC 167

Supreme Court of WA – 9 September 1999

FACTS

The Council and Four Seasons entered into a building contract that included an arbitration clause.

A dispute arose between the parties and the dispute was referred to arbitration.

An attempt by the Council to stay the arbitration was unsuccessful.

The arbitrator sent a letter to the parties setting out a tight timetable for the conduct of the arbitration. However the letter did not set out how the arbitrator intended to approach the arbitration. In particular, the letter did not indicate whether the arbitrator intended to decide the dispute on the papers or conduct a hearing.

The Council was also concerned that Four Seasons had not served adequate Points of Claim.

ISSUES

Should the Court make orders as allowed by section 47 of the Commercial Arbitration Act in relation to interlocutory aspects of the arbitration or stay the arbitration until adequate Points of Claim had been served on the Council?

FINDING

To continue reading this content, please complete the form below

End