Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 NOVEMBER 2023

Arbitration Clauses – A Thorny Issue For Third-party Beneficiaries Seeking To Litigate

Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Contributor

Miller Thomson

Miller Thomson LLP ("Miller Thomson") is a national business law firm with approximately 500...

View firm profile
Explore more from Miller Thomson

This case involves an interesting set of facts in a construction context.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

HUSKY OIL OPERATIONS LIMITED V. TECHNIP STONE & WEBSTER PROCESS TECHNOLOGY INC.1

SUMMARY

This case involves an interesting set of facts in a construction context.

Husky Oil Operations Limited ("Husky Oil"), the project owner, commenced an action against Technip Stone & Webster Process Technology Inc. ("Technip"), one of the subcontractors of Husky Oil's general contractor.

While that is not at all uncommon, Husky Oil chose to sue Technip as a third party beneficiary under the warranty provisions of the subcontract agreement (the "Subcontract"). The Subcontract contained a contractual provision requiring "all disputes" to be subject to arbitration.

Technip brought an application to stay the action on the basis of this arbitration clause. While the typical response to a stay of this nature is to simply commence an arbitration, the problem in this case is that Husky Oil was past the limitations period to commence an arbitration under the Alberta Limitations

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.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from