//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2010] QSC 97
Supreme Court of Queensland
2010-03-31
A Lyons J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The application for a stay of the proceeding is refused.
[1] Affidavit of DS Brackin, sworn 5 February 2010, pp 4 to 661.
[2] Affidavit of DS Brackin, sworn 5 February 2010, p 678.
[3] Northbuild Constructions Pty Ltd v Discovery Beach Project Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 206.
[4] Northbuild Constructions Pty Ltd v Discovery Beach Project Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 160.
[6] [2005] QSC 135; [2005] 2 Qd R 563 at 568.
[7] [2008] QCA 160 at para 84.
[8] Homepace Ltd v Sita South East Ltd [2007] EWHC 629 at [55]
Northbuild Construction Pty Ltd
Discovery Beach Project Pty Ltd
[21] The discretion whether or not to grant the stay is obviously wide. The starting point for a consideration of its exercise is that the parties should be held to their bargain to resolve their dispute in the agreed manner. This factor was emphasised by the House of Lords in Channel Tunnel, by the High Court in Dobbs and Huddart Parker Ltd v The Ship Mill Hill and Her Cargo [1950] HCA 43; (1950) 81 CLR 502 (an arbitration case) and by Gillard J in Badjin. However, a stay will not be granted if it would be unjust to deprive the plaintiff of the right to have his claim determined judicially or, to put it slightly differentially, if the justice of the case is against staying the proceeding. The party opposing the stay must persuade the court that there is good ground for the exercise of the discretion to allow the action to proceed and so preclude the contractual mode of dispute resolution. The onus is a heavy one. The court should not lightly conclude that the agreed mechanism is inappropriate."
(1950) 81 CLR 502