Dualcorp Pty Limited v Remo Constructions Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 749

Dualcorp Pty Limited v Remo Constructions Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 749

The wording of the dispute resolution clause (cl 14) is so imprecise and devoid of limitation as to be incapable of definitive construction; accordingly, it cannot operate to compel a stay of proceedings, and the defendant's application for a stay must be dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Dualcorp Pty Limited; Defendant: Remo Constructions Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Stay
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion for a stay dismissed; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
Dispute Resolution Clause, Application for Stay, Contractual Interpretation, Expert Determination, Mediation
Building and Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Dispute Resolution Clause Application for Stay Contractual Interpretation Expert Determination Mediation

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dualcorp Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Remo Constructions Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contractual dispute resolution clause (clause 14) compels a stay of court proceedings for the disputes raised
  2. 2 Proper construction and enforceability of the dispute resolution clause in the sub-contract

Ratio Decidendi

The wording of the dispute resolution clause (cl 14) is so imprecise and devoid of limitation as to be incapable of definitive construction; accordingly, it cannot operate to compel a stay of proceedings, and the defendant's application for a stay must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion for a stay dismissed; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • Defendant's notice of motion filed 20 June 2008 is dismissed.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion.