L. Grollo & Company Pty Ltd v Nu-Statt Decoration Pty Ltd & Ors [1983] FCA 414

CATCHWORDS

Arbitration - whether in the circumstances the defendant ought to be restrained from proceeding with an arbitration under an arbitration clause in an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant when a Federal Court action 1s pending - delay by the defendant in proceeding

to arbitration - the desirability of proceeding with the arbitration - the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to

restrain the arbitration or the parties from proceeding

with the arbitration.

L. GROLLO & CO. PTY. LTD. v. NU-STATT DECORATION PTY.

LTD. & ORS.

VG No. 39 of 1977

1 December 1983

Smithers J.

Melbourne.

IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) VG NO.39 OF 1977 } GENERAL DIVISION )

)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

BETWEEN : L. GROLLO & CO.

PLY. LID. AND: NU-STATT

DECORATING PTY. LID. & ORS.

1 December 1983

Smithers J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: In this case I feel unable to give the

relief which is sought in the chamber summons before me. The relief sought is that I should restrain Nu-Statt Decorating Pty. Ltd. (the defendant) from proceeding with an arbitration under an arbitration clause in an agreement dated 18 August 1975 between L. Grollo & Co. Pty. Ltd. (the plaintiff) and the defendant for the carrying out of painting to buildings erected as part of the Darwin Reconstruction at Anula-Wulagi

sub-division, Leept Road, Darwin, after Cyclone

2.

Tracey ("the said agreement").

The original proceedings, No. 39 of 1977 in this court, were brought against some tweive defendants, the last six named defendants being the Master Builders Association, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects (Victorian Chapter); the President of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (Victorian Chapter); The Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. and The Australian Institute of Building. Inter alia, allegations were made by the plaintiff that, by reason of agreements between the twelve defendants which were alleged to be in restraint of trade the said agreement was itself void, illegal and unenforceable because it was in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act). The Pleadings were amended on 1 August 1983 by the elimination of the last six named defendants and the claims relating to them, and the reformation