Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 AUGUST 2017

Arbitration case law update

Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Contributor
Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich is a large national commercial firm with offices in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Holding Redlich

These two recent decisions have clarified how dispute resolution clauses could be interpreted by different courts.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Two recent decisions have clarified how dispute resolution clauses will be interpreted by the courts.

In AGL Energy Limited v Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd [2017] NSWSC 765, the NSW Supreme Court ruled that a dispute resolution clause which provided that the parties must go to mediation "before having recourse to arbitration or litigation" was not a binding arbitration agreement.

The relevant clause stated:

"In the event that discussions under clause 30.4 fail to resolve the Dispute, each Party expressly agrees to endeavour to settle the Dispute by mediation administered by the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre (ACDC) before having recourse to arbitration or litigation."

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from