2025/00273969
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2025 | Appellant | Draft Notice of Appeal (PDF, 767.6 KB) |
| 14/10/2025 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 550.0 KB) |
| 30/10/2025 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 535.1 KB) |
| Respondent | Draft Notice of Cross Appeal (PDF, 417.0 KB) | |
| 11/11/2025 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 498.3 KB) |
| 11/12/2025 | Respondent | Certification of Suitability for Publication (PDF, 92.0 KB) |
CONTRACT – the applicants seek leave to appeal against the primary judge's finding that all but one paragraph of the applicant's Cross-Claim should be stayed in favour of arbitral proceedings. The respondents similarly seek leave to cross-appeal, arguing that a further issue (relating to bad faith) should have been considered arbitrable and stayed under s 7(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). The respondent commenced proceedings for declarations as to, and specific performance of, the Joint Venture Deed against the applicants. The applicants advanced cross-claims for contribution under the Joint Venture Deed or in equity, but the primary judge (while permitting the majority of the respondent's claims) stayed all but one paragraph of the applicants' Cross-Claim in favour of arbitration. The applicants argue that the primary judge erred in, inter alia: (i) treating the claims for contribution as separate "matters" under s 7(2) of the IAA; (ii) finding that the respondent's claims were not arbitrable due to a "legitimate public interest" in being resolved in court; (iii) concluding that the arbitration clause was no inoperative; and (iv) refusing to stay the respondent's claims, notwithstanding that their claims are dependent on the outcome of arbitration. The respondent argues that its claim in respect of bad faith should have been understood as susceptible to settlement as a discrete controversy in arbitration proceedings.
Last updated: