Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling & Freezing Co Ltd [1968] HCA 8

Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling & Freezing Co Ltd [1968] HCA 8

Clause 5 of the agreement is not void for uncertainty; its reference to 'supplier's costs' is capable of meaning and ascertainment. Variations in costs other than those specified in clause 2 may justify variation of energy charges, subject to notice and arbitration. The appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes is arbitration as provided in clause 18.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['contract Uncertainty' 'variation of Charges' 'arbitration Clauses']

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

Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 ['Whether clause 5 of the supply agreement is void for uncertainty' "Whether the supplier's costs had varied in the respects contemplated by and within the meaning of clause 5" 'Whether the Council was entitled to increase the energy charge under clause 5']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 5 of the agreement is not void for uncertainty; its reference to 'supplier's costs' is capable of meaning and ascertainment. Variations in costs other than those specified in clause 2 may justify variation of energy charges, subject to notice and arbitration. The appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes is arbitration as provided in clause 18.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal Division) set aside.' "Questions in the special case answered: (1) Is cl. 5 void for uncertainty? No. (2) Was the Supplier's costs varied in the respects contemplated by clause 5? Yes. (3) Was the Council entitled under cl. 5 to increase the energy...