//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1999] VSC 238
Supreme Court of Victoria
1999-06-30
O'Bryan J
Original judgment source is linked above.
(i) "The Arbitrator erred in law in concluding that, subject only to the question of Henry's authority to have ACA join in the ICC arbitration, there would seem to be no reason why ACA should not be free to pursue those claims regardless of the allegations in paragraph 26 of the points of the claim.
(ii) The Arbitrator erred in law in concluding that if the managing partner did possess the power under Article 5 of the Partnership Agreement to permit ACA to become a party to the ICC Arbitration it follows that the Arbitrator should permit ACA to continue generally as a party and await the outcome of that proceeding. (iii) The Arbitrator erred in law in concluding that if Henry had power to assent on behalf of the ACA to the request for the ICC Arbitration the presence of the claimants in that position is a consequence which nothing the Arbitrator can do will avert."
(I) proceeding to consider whether he should stay consideration of issues before the ICC Arbitration until such time as they have been resolved in those proceedings whilst simultaneously recognising that he was not concerned with a stay;
(II) alternatively, if the hearing was also concerned with the question of a stay, by finding that he was not concerned with the ordering of any stay and declining to consider whether or not he had the power to order a stay".
Mr Archibald's argument simply supported the matters stated above.
In my opinion, once the Arbitrator found that both limbs of the dispute fell within Article 39 of the ACA partnership agreement he was compelled to consider whether he could, and should, entertain the paragraphs in the Points of Claim which related to the ICC claims and their consequences. The overlap between matters in issue in the Australian arbitration and the ICC arbitration was obvious from a reading of the Points of Claim in each reference.
"(1) The Arbitrator erred in law in finding that if there were evidence to support a suggestion that the Arbitration had been initiated so as to prevent ACA from continuing the ICC Arbitration that would itself strongly suggest that proceedings before the Arbitrator were vexatious. (2) The Arbitrator erred in law in concluding that it was oppressive to seek to have determined the issue of whether or not as between ACA and AAA the ICC claims had no prospect of success."
Mr Archibald submitted that the applicants do not conceal that their aim is to prevent ACA from continuing in the ACA arbitration.
The observations of the Arbitrator to which exception is taken in Error 5 have been misunderstood, I consider. Upon a fair reading of the paragraph on page 12 I believe the Arbitrator meant that, if the claimants capriciously initiated the arbitration in Australia, the proceedings would be vexatious. However, no finding that the Australian arbitration is vexatious was made by the Arbitrator.
(i) "The Arbitrator erred in law in concluding that he should defer until the outcome of the ICC Arbitration any consideration of the issues which are also before it for adjudication. (ii) The Arbitrator erred in law in concluding that the paragraphs of the Points of Claim which are not to be considered were matters which fell within the scope of the ICC Arbitration. (iii) The Arbitrator erred in law in confining the scope of the Arbitration to only the issues raised in paragraphs 1 to 25, 33(a) and 34(a), (b) and (c)."
"The arbitrator erred in law in concluding that the ICC Arbitrator had only declined jurisdiction in any dispute confined narrowly to Henry's power under Article 5."
Allen
Henry [1999] VSC 238