NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ku-ring-gai Council v Ichor Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 610 Hearing dates: 24/04/2018 Date of orders: 08 May 2018 Decision date: 08 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial Arbitration List Before: McDougall J Decision: Summons dismissed with costs. Catchwords: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION – consideration of s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) – discussion of requirements for arbitrator to act as mediator – where arbitrator so acted – arbitrator's mandate terminated pursuant to s 27D(6) absent subsequent written consent of the parties – whether such consent can be inferred from the written record of the transcript – such inference of consent impermissible – consequently no written consent provided.
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION – statutory waiver – consideration of s 4 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) – whether first defendant waived its right to insist on written consent – s 4 requires actual knowledge of the provision which is to be waived – no such knowledge in present case – no waiver established.
EQUITY – whether first defendant estopped from insisting on written consent – no evidentiary basis for either conventional estoppel or estoppel by representation – no detriment suffered by plaintiff in any event – proceedings dismissed. Legislation Cited: Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 Cases Cited: Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Gardiner (2008) 238 CLR 570 Hopeshore Pty Ltd v Melroad Equipment Pty Ltd (2004) 212 ALR 66 Overmyer Industrial Brokers Pty Ltd v Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 305 Texts Cited: Australian Oxford Dictionary Commercial Arbitration in Australia (LawBook Co, 2nd edition, 2013) Macquarie Dictionary Report of the 18th Session of the United Nations Commision on International Trade Law Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ku-ring-gai Council (Plaintiff) Ichor Constructions Pty Ltd (First Defendant) John Tyrril (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Dr CJ Birch SC (Plaintiff) M A Ashhurst SC / L D Corbett (Defendants)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate