Amcor Packaging (Australia) Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 253

Amcor Packaging (Australia) Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 253

Clause 31 of the PDPA was an arbitration agreement between Amcor and Baulderstone. The proposed claims, including claims under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), knowing involvement, breach of contractual obligations to negotiate in good faith and equitable compensation, arose out of or in connection with the PDPA because they concerned Baulderstone's alleged failure to disclose Bilfinger approval issues in the context of the B9 Project and a GMP contract contemplated by the PDPA. The preliminary discovery application was not the kind of urgent interlocutory relief preserved by cl 31.11. The proceeding between Amcor and Baulderstone therefore had to be stayed under s 8 of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Proposed Federal Court Proceeding Involving Application for Preliminary Discovery and Application for Stay Pending Arbitration / Interlocutory Applications Before Commencement or Determination of the Proposed Proceeding
Outcome
The prospective respondents' stay application was allowed; the proposed proceeding and the prospective applicant's preliminary discovery application were stayed; the prospective applicant was ordered to pay the prospective respondents' costs of both interlocutory applications.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceeding Under Commercial Arbitration Legislation' 'construction of Dispute Resolution Clause' 'preliminary Discovery' 'section 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'breach of Contract' 'knowing Involvement']
['arbitration' 'practice and Procedure' 'contract' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct'] ['stay of Proceeding Under Commercial Arbitration Legislation' 'construction of Dispute Resolution Clause' 'preliminary Discovery' 'section 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'breach of Contract' 'knowing Involvement']

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

Proposed Federal Court Proceeding Involving Application for Preliminary Discovery and Application for Stay Pending Arbitration / Interlocutory Applications Before Commencement or Determination of the Proposed Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed proceeding between Amcor and Baulderstone should be stayed because the dispute was subject to an arbitration agreement in cl 31 of the PDPA.' "Whether the proposed claims arose out of or in connection with the PDPA, despite Amcor's contention that they concerned a proposed GMP contract." 'Whether the application for preliminary discovery under r 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) fell within the arbitration clause or the exception for interlocutory relief.' 'Whether the proposed proceeding against the individual prospective respondents, who were not parties to the PDPA, should also be stayed.' 'Whether the Court should determine the preliminary discovery application after ordering a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 31 of the PDPA was an arbitration agreement between Amcor and Baulderstone. The proposed claims, including claims under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), knowing involvement, breach of contractual obligations to negotiate in good faith and equitable compensation, arose out of or in connection with the PDPA because they concerned Baulderstone's alleged failure to disclose Bilfinger approval issues in the context of the B9 Project and a GMP contract contemplated by the PDPA. The preliminary discovery application was not the kind of urgent interlocutory relief preserved by cl 31.11. The proceeding between Amcor and Baulderstone therefore had to be stayed under s 8 of the...

Court Disposition

The prospective respondents' stay application was allowed; the proposed proceeding and the prospective applicant's preliminary discovery application were stayed; the prospective applicant was ordered to pay the prospective respondents' costs of both interlocutory applications.

Orders

  • ['The proposed proceeding, as between the prospective applicant and the prospective first respondent is stayed pursuant to s 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic) and s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'The proposed proceeding, as between the prospective applicant and the prospective...