EASTERN METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL V. FOUR SEASONS CONSTRUCTION PTY
LTD  WASC 167
Supreme Court of WA – 9 September 1999
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.
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?