SUNDELL V. THE QUEENSLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
The instrument of reference operated by joint consent of the parties and was not restricted by Clause 27; Clause 27 only barred the right to require arbitration unilaterally after a lapse of time, not the substantive claim itself. As the dispute was referred by mutual agreement, the arbitrators and umpire had...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Sundell; Respondent: The Queensland Housing Commission
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 December 1953
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Arbitration Clause Interpretation, Contractual Time Limits, Jurisdiction of Arbitrators
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sundell
Appellant
The Queensland Housing Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Clause 27 of the contract bars the claim or merely bars the right to require arbitration.
- 2 Whether the arbitrators and the umpire had jurisdiction to make the award despite time limitations.
- 3 Effect of the instrument of reference and contractual provisions on arbitrators' powers.
Ratio Decidendi
The instrument of reference operated by joint consent of the parties and was not restricted by Clause 27; Clause 27 only barred the right to require arbitration unilaterally after a lapse of time, not the substantive claim itself. As the dispute was referred by mutual agreement, the arbitrators and umpire had jurisdiction and the award was valid.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed.
Orders
- Order of the Supreme Court of Queensland discharged.
- Order that the motion to the Supreme Court be dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment