Rinbridge Marketing Pty Ltd v Rinbridge Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 1089

Rinbridge Marketing Pty Ltd v Rinbridge Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 1089

Because notice of dispute under clause 24(a) was a condition precedent to commencement of the proceeding and no such notice had been given, the proceeding should be dismissed. The cross-claim should also be dismissed so that, if notice is later given and the applicant is still entitled to do so, the whole dispute can be litigated in the appropriate court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Contract Construction and Trade Practices Act 1974, S. 52 / Orders After Earlier Judgment on Motion Concerning Whether Proceeding Should Be Dismissed or Statement of Claim Struck Out
Outcome
The proceeding and the cross-claim were dismissed, with the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding including the costs of the motion and reserved costs, if any.
Legal Topics
['construction and Interpretation' 'arbitration Clauses' 'scott V Avery Clause' 'condition Precedent to Commencement of Proceedings' 'trade Practices Act 1974, S. 52']
['contracts' 'trade Practices' 'arbitration'] ['construction and Interpretation' 'arbitration Clauses' 'scott V Avery Clause' 'condition Precedent to Commencement of Proceedings' 'trade Practices Act 1974, S. 52']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Contract Construction and Trade Practices Act 1974, S. 52 / Orders After Earlier Judgment on Motion Concerning Whether Proceeding Should Be Dismissed or Statement of Claim Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether giving a notice of dispute pursuant to clause 24(a) of the agreement was a condition precedent to commencement of the proceeding.' 'Whether, given no notice of dispute had been given, the proceeding should be dismissed or the statement of claim struck out.' 'Whether the cross-claim should also be dismissed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because notice of dispute under clause 24(a) was a condition precedent to commencement of the proceeding and no such notice had been given, the proceeding should be dismissed. The cross-claim should also be dismissed so that, if notice is later given and the applicant is still entitled to do so, the whole dispute can be litigated in the appropriate court.

Court Disposition

The proceeding and the cross-claim were dismissed, with the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding including the costs of the motion and reserved costs, if any.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding and the cross-claim be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of the proceeding, including the costs of the motion and reserved costs, if any.']