White SW Computer Law
|Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Telecommunications Lawyers|
Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST Victoria 8007 Australia
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY New South Wales 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: email@example.com Internet: http://www.computerlaw.com.au
This is an old revision of the document!
Dispute resolution procedures are often interdependent and care must be taken when drafting clauses that seek to fast track particular types of dispute to a single specified method of dispute resolution.
Importantly, it should be clear whether one party has the ability to unilaterally oblige other parties to undergo the fast track dispute resolution mechanism, as should the interaction of the fast track option within the framework provided by the general dispute resolution clauses.
Plenary Research Pty Ltd v Biosciences Research Centre Pty Ltd 1) required the interpretation of the dispute resolution provisions of a Project Agreement, pursuant to which the Appellant had agreed to design, construct and operate a biosciences research facility.
The Appellant had submitted three extension of time claims, which were rejected by the Respondent. The Appellant then proceeded to serve a Notice of Dispute and submissions on the Respondent disputing the rejection of its extension of time claims.
The Respondent sought to exercise its right to refer the dispute for resolution under the Accelerated Dispute Resolution Procedures provided for in the Project Agreement and at first instance (Biosciences Research Centre Pty Ltd v Plenary Research Pty Ltd 2) ), Croft J held that the agreement required the dispute to be resolved by an Independent Expert in accordance with the Accelerated Dispute Resolution Procedures.
The Appellant disputed that referral and claimed the Notice of Dispute must proceed to arbitration.
The Project Agreement provided three dispute resolution procedures:
The principal issue in the appeal was to determine which dispute resolution procedure applied.
There were two classes of disputes which could be referred for determination by the Accelerated Dispute Resolution Procedures. One class consisted of disputes expressly referred for determination by an Independent Expert or by Accelerated Dispute Resolution. The second class consists of disputes agreed to be referred to an Independent Expert in the event that the Senior Negotiations procedure did not succeed (subject to the quantum being below the agreed threshold).
The Project Agreement provided that an extension of time dispute may be referred to an Independent Expert for resolution.
Croft J preferred the Respondent’s view that the word ‘may’ gives either party the option to refer an extension of time claim to an Independent Expert.
The Appellant submitted that the construction adopted by Croft J was incorrect. They argued that whilst ‘may’ can mean ‘must’, the construction of the clause should not enable one party to proceed unilaterally to impose the Accelerated Dispute Resolution Procedures against the opposition of the other party.
The Appellant maintained that the fast track referral to an Independent Expert remained possible, on the initiative of one party, but not compulsory in the event that the other party objected, or where the preferred arbitration process had commenced.
The Court, Garde AJA with Maxwell P and Tate JA in agreement, held that the construction of the clause governing extension of time disputed by the trial judge was correct, for reasons including, amongst others:
Croft J noted the High Court’s reference to the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court in Zeke Services Pty Ltd v Traffic Technologies Ltd 3), 570  (Chesterman J) in Shoalhaven City Council v Firedam Civil Engineering Pty Ltd 4), 315  (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) in which it was stated that the evident advantage of an expert determination of a contractual dispute is that it is expeditious and economical.
With correctly worded agreements, the parties can make good use of a fast track resolution process involving expert determination for specified areas of dispute, while maintaining an overarching dispute resolution mechanism to govern the agreement as a whole. The main challenge is to identify which classes of potential disputes are to be covered by the fast track process and the mechanism by which the fast track process may be instigated.
SARAH PIKE & STEVE WHITE
WHITE SW COMPUTER LAW
© White SW Computer Law 2014
This article 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.