Source: http://arbitrator.com.au/doku.php?id=enforcement_of_an_arbitration_clause
Timestamp: 2019-02-20 22:21:44
Document Index: 455874030

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ']

enforcement_of_an_arbitration_clause [www.arbitrator.com.au]
Trace: • enforcement_of_an_arbitration_clause
enforcement_of_an_arbitration_clause
An agreement to arbitrate is in most cases enforceable. Please see the cases below for more information.
Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s16 - Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction
Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (VIC), s42 - Power to set aside award
Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s30 - Power to stay proceedings
Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 (ACT), s53 - Power to stay court proceedings
In the matter of Infinite Plus Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 470
Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd v Samsung1)
This proceeding involves the determination of a matter, whether the Condition Precedent in cl 2.1 of the Deed was satisfied and whether the Deed has terminated, that, in pursuance of the agreement in cl 8.4(b) of the Deed, is capable of settlement by arbitration. The proceeding must be stayed and the parties referred to arbitration.
John Holland Pty Limited v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd2)
nearmap Ltd v Spookfish Pty Ltd 3)
Andent Pty Ltd v Thornhill Machine Tools Australia Pty Ltd 4)
William Hare UAE LLC v Aircraft Support Industries Pty Ltd 5)
Brazis & Ors v Rosati & Ors 6)
Pipeline Services WA Pty Ltd v ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd 7)
Flint Ink NZ Limited v Huhtamaki Australia Pty Ltd & Anor 8)
Subway Systems Australia v Ireland 9)
Sedgman South Africa (Pty) Limited & Ors v Discovery Copper Botswana (Pty) Limited 10)
Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP 11)
Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v ZRE Katowice SA 12)
Lend Lease Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd (Formerly Conneq Infrastructure Services (Australia) Pty Ltd) v Sino Iron Pty Ltd 13)
Cape Lambert Resources Ltd v MCC Australia Sanjin Mining Pty Ltd 14)
Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Beach Building & Civil Group Pty Ltd 15)
Casaceli v Natuzzi S.p.A.16)
Requirement to arbitrate in Milan. Arbitration clause upheld in Australia.
Momentous.ca Corp. v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd17)
Arbitration clause upheld in Canada
Star Reefers Pool Inc. v JFC Group Co. Ltd 18)
In Re: American Express Merchants’ Litigation19)
Alleged illegal “tying arrangement,” in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
The class action waiver provision were held to be unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act
Rosa Kwan v Clearwire Corporation20)
Clickwrap Arbitration Clause
BNP Paribas SA v Open Joint Stock Company Russian Machines & Anor21)
M & I Samaras Pty Ltd (No 1) v John Holland Pty Ltd 22)
Sapphire (SA) Pty Ltd (t/as River City Grain) v Barry Smith Grains Pty Ltd (in liq)23)
Larkden Pty Limited -v- Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited 24)
Our Mr White was the arbitrator in this matter.
Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), ss 35 and 36 - Award by arbitrator declaring a constructive trust, ordering specific performance of a Licencing Agreement and requiring the defendant to take steps - recognition and enforcement opposed on the basis that part of the Award dealt with the dispute not contemplated by or falling within the terms of arbitration and that recognition and enforcement of parts of the Award would be contrary to the public policy of this State - orders for recognition and enforcement made
Larkden Pty Limited -v- Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited 25)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s440D - an application for leave to bring and continue proceedings against a company in voluntary administration for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award pursuant to Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) s 35 - nature of discretion to be exercised - relevant circumstances - leave granted
Jebsens International (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor v Interfert Australia Pty Ltd & Ors26)
Deutsche Bank Ag v Tongkah Harbour Public Company Ltd 27)
Lightsource Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Pointsec Mobile Technologies AB28)
There was no material before the Court which satisfies it that the rules provided for in the arbitration clause formed part of the laws of Sweden (a convention country)
The Court found that taken together the following amount to a sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement.
the proceedings under the Trade Practices Act may not be susceptible of determination in Sweden under Swedish law and are better dealt with in Australia by courts well familiar with the statutory (and common law) concepts of unconscionability;
the proceedings have a strong connection with Australia where, no doubt, most of the relevant witnesses are and where all the relevant conduct occurred;
the arbitration is now time-barred;
the plaintiff has foreshadowed that there are other persons who could be joined to the proceedings who are not party to the arbitration agreement and who, therefore, could not be party to the arbitration, though none have yet been joined.
Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited29)
Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) s 16(9) - jurisdiction of arbitrator to determine dispute concerning patents and patent applications - Contract - construction - meaning of term “dispute” in an arbitration clause - whether issues raised are purely hypothetical
Siemens Ltd v Origin Energy Uranquinty Power Pty Ltd30) Ball J
This is an application by the defendant, Origin, for the stay of these proceedings under s 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (the CA Act 2010)
Origin's motion filed on 17 February 2011 should be dismissed with costs
AED Oil Limited v Puffin FPSO Limited
Gilgandra Marketing Co-Operative Limited v Australian Commodities & Marketing Pty Ltd & Anor
AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC
AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC31) Rix LJ, Wilson LJ, Burnton LJ
Lord Collins cites from the DTI Departmental Advisory Committee in its February 1994 report on a draft Arbitration Bill (the “Saville Report”), records the statutory position now accomplished (principally by sections 30, 32 and 67), and continues:
The consistent practice of the courts in England has been that they will examine or re-examine for themselves the jurisdiction of arbitrators.
This can arise in a variety of contexts, including a challenge to the tribunal's jurisdiction under section 67 of the 1996 Act, or in an application to stay judicial proceedings on the ground that the parties have agreed to arbitrate.
Thus in Azov Shipping Co v Baltic Shipping Co 32) Rix J decided that where there was a substantial issue of fact as to whether a party had entered into an arbitration agreement, then even if there had already been a full hearing before the arbitrator the court, on a challenge under section 67, should not be in a worse position than the arbitrator for the purpose of determining challenge.
This decision has been consistently applied at first instance 33) and is plainly right
Where there is an application to stay proceedings under section 9 of the 1996 Act, both in international and domestic cases, the court will examine the issue of whether there ever was an agreement to arbitrate34).
So also where an injunction was refused restraining an arbitrator from ruling on his own jurisdiction in Geneva arbitration, the Court of Appeal recognised that the arbitrator could consider the question of his own jurisdiction, but that would only be a first step in determining that question, whether the subsequent steps took place in Switzerland or England35)
This analysis, in my respectful opinion, usefully underscores the wider picture about the autonomy of the parties and the jurisdiction of arbitrators with power to investigate their own jurisdiction
…namely that, sooner or later, the question of substantive jurisdiction is likely to come before the court.
Where parties differ as to a matter as fundamental as whether they have agreed any contract, or any contract containing an arbitration clause, it is most unlikely that one or other of them will rest content with the decision of arbitrators as to either their jurisdiction or as to the parties' rights.
For one or other party is saying that there is simply no agreement that arbitrators can resolve their disputes.
In such circumstances, the issue of jurisdiction is likely to come before the courts sooner or later, and when it does, it will have to be decided by the court from first principles and in the light of facts which, whatever the investigation by the arbitrators, are yet to be determined on the evidence by the court.
That is the learning of Azov Shipping, approved by the Supreme Court in Dallah, where I said this:
This was perhaps a case where the parties might well have come to Court, either by agreement or upon the application by one side or the other for the Court to determine the issues of jurisdiction, on the ground that it was likely to produce substantial savings in cost and that there was good reason why the matter should be decided by the Court.
With hindsight it seems to me that even if the parties could not agree on that course, the Court would be persuaded to allow such a determination if, of course, the tribunal had given its own permission, which is a sine qua non in the absence of the agreement of the parties.
It might be assumed that the arbitrator may have been the more willing to give his agreement inasmuch as the question of jurisdiction in this case involved the prior question of whether Azov had ever become a party to the agreement as a whole…
I can quite see that there is an interest in encouraging parties to put their arguments on jurisdiction before the arbitrator himself under s30.
In many cases, and perhaps in the ordinary and normal case of such a challenge, where, for instance, there is simply an issue as to the width of an arbitration clause and no issue as to whether a party is bound to the relevant contract in the first place, the arbitrator's view may be accepted.
If it is not, a challenge to the court is likely to be a limited affair raising, essentially, a point of construction on the clause and thus no problem arises.
Where, however, there are substantial issues of fact as to whether a party has made the relevant agreement in the first place, then it seems to me that, even if there has been a full hearing before the arbitrators the Court, upon a challenge under s. 67, should not be placed in a worse position than the arbitrator for the purpose of determining that challenge…“
Thus, a question of jurisdiction may come before the court in a number of different situations.
It might arise where one party goes to court with a claim and the defendant seeks a stay for arbitration: the claimant may say there is no contract or no arbitration agreement, and the court will have to investigate that question for the purpose of dealing with the application to stay.
Or a party may commence an arbitration, and the other party may say there is no agreement or no agreement to arbitrate, in which case the matter is prima facie for the arbitrators to decide in the first instance pursuant to section 30.
In a plain case, the arbitrators may proceed to determine their own jurisdiction, but equally the parties may agree to come straight to court to determine the question, or the arbitrators may give permission for the issue to be taken to court and the court may agree to accept the issue at that stage.
Or the respondent in the arbitration may stand aloof, and come to court under section 72, or, following an award, under section 67.
Or, a party may start proceedings in another country and the defendant there then comes to the English court to ask it to uphold their arbitration agreement by granting an anti-suit injunction.
That is the equivalent of a party seeking a stay where an action is begun in England.
Where the action in breach or alleged breach of an arbitration agreement is begun in a foreign country, the respondent may or may not seek a stay there, but here he may ask for an anti-suit injunction.
There are further variations thrown up by the cases.
In some cases, it is reasonably plain that an arbitration agreement has been made, but there may be an issue as to its scope, or as to whether there has been a repudiation of it, or, as here, as to its surviving effectiveness.
In other cases, there is a factual dispute as to whether any agreement has ever been made in the first place, or a legal dispute as to whether an arbitration clause has been incorporated into the parties' contract.
Moreover in some cases, what is sought from the court is an interim injunction, which is among the subject-matters of section 44, and in other cases what is sought is a final injunction, which is not within section 44 but, subject to contrary agreement by the parties, may be within the powers of an arbitral tribunal in a final award 36).
Moreover, a distinction may have to be made between a declaration as to the existence or effectiveness of an arbitration agreement about which parties are in dispute, which is a form of final relief as to the parties' legal rights, and an anti-suit injunction which, at any rate in its interim form, is only intended to hold the ring until some tribunal, whether it is the court itself at some later date, or an arbitral tribunal, can grapple with the merits of the parties' dispute.
Oakton Services Pty Ltd v Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd
Oakton Services Pty Ltd v Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd37)38)
PT Tri-MG Intra Asia Airlines v Norse Air Charter Limited 39)
TCL Airconditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd40)
The scope of a referral to arbitration depends upon the proper construction of the relevant arbitration clause.
United Group Rail Services Ltd v Rail Corporation New South Wales41)
..[an arbitration] clause is to be read liberally as required by the common law of Australia 42)
Parties therefore often deal with the possibility of their occurrence in advance by the terms of their bargain.
Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd 43)
all and any disputes shall be referred to and subject to arbitration in London before a tribunal of three arbitrators
Applied the principles set out Fiona Trust v Privalov 44) and concluded that the Arbitral Tribunal had jurisdiction.
The case also involved the enforcement of a peremptory order.
The order was granted together with a freezing order.
Ace Capital Ltd v CMS Energy Corporation45)
Electra Air Conditioning BV v Seeley International Pty Ltd46)
Electra Dispute Clause
Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov 47), Hoffman LJ
Shelltime4 Dispute Clause
The owners have commenced court proceedings for a declaration that the charters have been validly rescinded and the charterers have applied for a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996
The parties have entered into a relationship, an agreement or what is alleged to be an agreement or what appears on its face to be an agreement, which may give rise to disputes.
They want those disputes decided by a tribunal which they have chosen, commonly on the grounds of such matters as its neutrality, expertise and privacy, the availability of legal services at the seat of the arbitration and the unobtrusive efficiency of its supervisory law.
Particularly in the case of international contracts, they want a quick and efficient adjudication and do not want to take the risks of delay and, in too many cases, partiality, in proceedings before a national jurisdiction.
In my opinion the construction of an arbitration clause should start from the assumption that the parties, as rational businessmen, are likely to have intended any dispute arising out of the relationship into which they have entered or purported to enter to be decided by the same tribunal.
The clause should be construed in accordance with this presumption unless the language makes it clear that certain questions were intended to be excluded from the arbitrator's jurisdiction. 48)
As Longmore LJ remarked, 49)
if any businessman did want to exclude disputes about the validity of a contract, it would be comparatively easy to say so.
If one adopts this approach, the language of clause 41 of Shelltime4 Dispute Clause contains nothing to exclude disputes about the validity of the contract, whether on the grounds that it was procured by fraud, bribery, misrepresentation or anything else.
In my opinion it therefore applies to the present dispute.
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd v Paramount (WA) Ltd 50)
where a party to an arbitration agreement makes the same claim against both the other party to the arbitration agreement and a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement – with the result that, so far as it involves the latter, the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration – it will generally be equally difficult to ascribe to the parties to the arbitration agreement an intention that in such an event the dispute should be fragmented and that the liability of the party to the arbitration agreement and that of the third party respectively should be determined in different forums
HMI Casualty & General Insurance Limited (in liq) v RJ Wallace & Ors 51)
Option to arbitrate or litigate
King v Brandywine Reinsurance Co (UK) Ltd52)
Commercial Union Assurance Co Pk v NRG Victory Reinsurance Limited53)
BP plc v National Union Fire insurance Co54)
EI Du Point de Nemours & Co v IC Agnew55)
Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd56)
These commercial parties freely entered a bargain to resolve their disputes in London according to English law.
No one forced Pan to do so.
Through its broker, it entered the international market for the time chartering of vessels.
It negotiated hire and terms on the foundation of a dispute resolution clause in clause 45(b).
If it had wanted to maintain any rights by reference to Australian law governing its relationship, it could have bargained for them.
There are powerful discretionary reasons why an arbitration agreement should be enforced, even if the contractually chosen venue and law give rights not entirely the same as would arise under one party’s domestic law and in one party’s domestic courts57)
Transfield Philippines Inc & Ors v Pacific Hydro Ltd and Ors58)
Alstom Power Ltd v Eraring Energy 59)
ACD Tridon v Tridon Australia 60) Austin J
I accept, as well, that public policy considerations operate against referring to arbitration a determination to wind up a company on the grounds upon which a court may order that a company be wound up.
However, I would not regard these public policy considerations as preventing parties to a dispute from referring questions to arbitration merely because those questions arise under the Corporations Act.
I see nothing special about the Corporations Act that would distinguish it, as a whole, from other legislation such as the Trade Practices Act.
This seems to be the position reached by United States courts 61)
The statutory powers of a Court under the Corporations Act are, generally speaking, comparable to the powers exercised by a court under the general law (the power to make a winding up order being an exception to this proposition). They are generally not special powers to be exercised having regard to specialist public interest criteria.
Specifically, the public policy considerations held by Warren J62)63)to be applicable to a disputed claim to wind up a company do not seem to me to prevent the parties from referring to arbitration a claim for some merely inter partes relief under the oppression provisions of the Corporations Act, or for access to corporate information under s 247A.
However, the “in rem” nature of an order for rectification of the share register of a company may prevent reference of that power to an arbitrator.”
February 14, 2001 - Timic v Hammock 64)
Metrocall Inc v Electronic Tracking Systems Pty Ltd65):
Hi-Fert Pty Ltd v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc (No 5)66)
Hi-Fert Pty Ltd & Anor v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc & Anor 67)
Hi-Fert Pty Ltd & Anor v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc & Anor 68)
December 4, 1996 - Hi-Fert Pty Ltd & Anor v Kuikiang Maritime Carriers Inc & Anor69)
Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd 70)
IBM Australia Ltd v National Distribution Services Ltd71)
From the foregoing trend of authority, both in Australian and overseas courts, it can be seen that an arbitration clause, expressed in the language of the clause here under consideration, is not to be narrowly construed.
It is sufficiently wide to include claims for rectification and for relief on the grounds of misrepresentation or mistake ….
Whilst it is true that the conduct complained of as being in breach of the Trade Practices Act (Cth) is alone sufficient to enliven the provisions of that Act and whilst such provisions do not depend upon the agreement of the parties, such considerations do not determine the simple question posed.
That question is whether the misrepresentations alleged are `related to this agreement or the breach thereof'.
It is enough to say that, in this case, it was open to Rogers CJ Comm Div to determine that the relationship was made out on the pleadings
Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O’Brien72)
In the context of s 7(2), the expression ‘matter … capable of settlement by arbitration’ may, but does not necessarily, mean the whole matter in controversy in the court proceedings.
So too, it may, but does not necessarily encompass all the claims within the scope of the controversy in the court proceedings.
Even so, the expression ‘matter … capable of settlement by arbitration’ indicates something more than a mere issue which might fall for decision in the court proceedings or might fall for decision in arbitral proceedings if they were instituted 73).
It requires that there be some subject matter, some right or liability in controversy which, if not co-extensive with the subject matter in controversy in the court proceedings, is at least susceptible of settlement as a discrete controversy.
AT & T Technologies Inc v Communications Workers of America, 475 US 643 (1986), 650, the United States Supreme Court said that, in the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration could prevail.
Allergan Pharmaceuticals Inc and Anor v Bausch & Lomb Inc and Anor74)
contraventions of sections of the Act “arise exclusively from the statutory provisions themselves” and not from any contractual relationship between the parties
Flakt Australia Ltd v Wilkens & Davies Construction Co Ltd75)
In my opinion, the word ‘matter’ in s 7(2)(b) denotes any claim for relief of a kind proper for determination in a court.
It does not include every issue which would, or might, arise for decision in the course of the determination of such a claim.
November 8, 1950 - Huddart Parker Ltd v Ship "Mill Hill"76)
But the courts begin with the fact that there is a special contract between the parties to refer, and therefore
consider the circumstances of a case with a strong bias in favour of maintaining the special bargain77) and
a guiding principle on one side and a very natural and proper one, is that parties who have made a contract should keep it.78)
1) [2015] WASC 458
2) [2015] NSWSC 451
3) [2014] NSWSC 1790
4) [2014] VSC 647
5) [2014] NSWSC 1403
6) [2014] VSCA 264
7) [2014] WASC 10
8) [2013] VSCA 381
9) [2013] VSC 550
10) [2013] QSC 105
11) [2013] UKSC 35
12) [2012] EWHC 3205 (TCC)
13) [2012] WASC 492
14) [2012] WASC 228
15) [2012] FCA 696
16) [2012] FCA 691
17) 2012 SCC 9
18) [2012] EWCA Civ 14
19) 06-1871-cv
20) C09-1392JLR
21) [2011] EWHC 308 (Comm)
22) [2012] VSC 98
23) [2011] NSWSC 1451
24) [2011] NSWSC 1331
25) [2011] NSWSC 1305
26) [2012] SASC 50
27) [2011] EWHC 2251 (Comm)
28) [2011] ACTSC 59
29) [2011] NSWSC 268
30) [2011] NSWSC 195
31) [2011] EWCA Civ 647
32) [1999] 1 All ER 476
33) see, eg, Peterson Farms Inc v C & M Farming Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 603
34) see Al-Naimi (trading as Buildmaster Construction Services) v Islamic Press agency Inc [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 522 (Court of Appeal: English arbitration) and Albon (trading as NA Carriage Co) v Naza Trading Sdn Bhd (No 4) [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1 (Malaysian arbitration
35) see Weissfisch v Julius [2006] 1 Lloyd's Rep 716, para 32
36) see section 48 of the AA 1996
37) Our Steve White did all the preparatory arbitration work for Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd for over 12 months including running the dispute process the subject of this reported decision.
38) [2010] VSC 176
39) [2009] SGHC 13
40) [2009] VSC 553
41) (2009) 74 NSWLR 618
42) Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160 at 165-166 (Gleeson CJ with whom Meagher JA and Sheller JA agreed) and Comandate Marine Corporation v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 192; 157 FCR 45 at 87-93 [162]- [187] (Allsop J with whom Finn J and Finkelstein J agreed).
See also the law of international commerce: Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 254 (see [31] for the phrase “law of international commerce”) and Threlkeld & Co Inc v Metallgesellschaft Limited (London) [1991] USCA2 61; 923 F 2d 245 (2nd Cir. 1991).
43) [2009] EWHC 1 (Comm)
44) [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 254
45) [2008] EWHC 1843
46) [2008] FCAFC 169
47) [2007] UKHL 40; [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 254
48) Cited with approval Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2009] EWHC 1 (Comm)
49) at para 17
50) [2008] WASCA 110 at [43]
51) (2006) 204 FLR 297
52) [2004] 2 Lloyd's Rep 670
53) [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 80
54) [2004] EWHC 1132
55) [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep 585
56) [2006] FCAFC 192
57) see Wealands v CLC Contractors and Key Scaffolding Ltd [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 739 at 747-48 and Société Commerciale de Reassurance v Eras International Ltd [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 570 at 610-11.
58) [2006] VSC 175 (at [87])
59) [2004] FCA 706 at [6]
60) [2002] NSWSC 896
61) see Dean Witter Reynolds Inc v Byrd [1985] USSC 44; 470 US 213 (1985); Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc v Wagoner 944 F 2d 114 (2nd Cir 1991); also Pick v Discover Financial Services Inc 2001 No.Civ.A 00-935-SLR (D) Del Sept 28, 2001
62) http://www.arbitrator.com.au/doku.php?id=enforcement_of_an_expert_determination_clause#cases
63) A Best Floor Sanding Party Ltd
64) [2001] FCA 74
65) (2000) 52 NSWLR 1 (at 21; [63])
66) (1998) 90 FCR 1
67) ([1998] FCA 1485
68) [1998] FCA 558
69) [1996] FCA 1059
70) (1996) 39 NSWLR 160
71) (1991) 22 NSWLR 466
72) (1990) 169 CLR 332 (at 350)
73) Flakt [1979] 2 N.S.W.L.R., at p 250
74) [1985] FCA 369
75) [1979] 2 NSWLR 243 (at 245, 250)
76) [1950] HCA 43
77) in the language of Lord Moulton in Bristol Corporation v John Hard & Co
78) Scrutton LJ said in Metropolitan Tunnel and Public Works Ltd v London Electric Railway Co