Legal Research
Cases
AED Oil Ltd v Puffin FPSO Ltd

AED Oil Ltd v Puffin FPSO Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 5 March 2010 16 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No S APCI 3894 of 2009
AED OIL LIMITED (ACN 110 393 292)	First Applicant
and
AED SERVICES PTE LTD (Incorporated in Singapore)	Second Applicant
v
PUFFIN FPSO LIMITED (Company Registration No C37772) (Incorporated in Malta)	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and BONGIORNO JJA and CROFT AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 January 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 March 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSCA 37	1^st Revision: 7 May 2010 – [4]
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2009] VSC 534 (Judd J)

---

ARBITRATION – Application for stay of court proceedings – Construction of arbitration agreement – Meaning of ‘urgent interlocutory or declaratory relief’ – Enforcement of declarations made by arbitrators – Claim not urgent – Waiver – International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First Applicant	Mr J Gleeson SC with Mr N Pane	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the Second Applicant	Mr J Digby QC with Mr A Strahan	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
For the Respondent	Mr J G Santamaria QC with Mr J P Moore	Freehills

BUCHANAN JA
BONGIORNO JA
CROFT AJA:

This application concerns the question whether a dispute arising out of a charter contract between an oil company (‘AED Oil’), which was engaged in production from an oil field in the Southern Timor Sea, and the owner of a tanker (‘Puffin’) should be determined in court or by arbitration.

The facts

The charter contract was originally made between AED Oil and Puffin. Subsequently, a company (‘AED Services’), which was related to AED Oil, succeeded to the rights and obligations of AED Oil. AED Oil guaranteed the performance of AED Services’ obligations under the contract. The performance of AED Services’ obligations was also secured by a charge over AED Oil’s assets.

The dispute concerned the Australian tax liabilities of Puffin. Under the charter contract, AED Oil agreed to bear Puffin’s tax liability. By Article 15.4 of the charter contract, AED Oil agreed to indemnify Puffin against any claim for a payment under a tax law. AED Oil was to prepare and file Puffin’s tax returns. Article 15.5 extinguished AED Oil’s liability if Puffin failed to meet certain obligations, including compliance with its obligations under Australian tax laws such as lodging tax returns, providing information to AED Oil to ensure Puffin’s liabilities were minimised to the extent legally possible and not making any admission or taking any action in relation to a tax claim without AED Oil’s written approval.

Puffin alleges that AED Services terminated the charter contract in mid-2009 as a result of a sharp decline in production for the oil field. Shortly prior to the termination, Puffin made a series of demands upon AED Services requiring the payment of money to meet Puffin’s liability for income tax and GST. The demands were contested by AED Services.

The principal bone of contention between the parties was Puffin’s ability to depreciate its assets. AED Services’ position was that the effective life of the assets was tied to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AED Oil Ltd v Puffin FPSO Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] VSCA 37
Decision Date: 5 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the court involved AED Oil Ltd seeking a stay of proceedings against Puffin FPSO Ltd, arguing that an arbitration agreement required the resolution of their dispute through arbitration rather than through the courts. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with Justice Edelman presiding. AED Oil sought to enforce declarations made by an arbitrator regarding their contractual rights, claiming these declarations constituted ‘urgent interlocutory or declaratory relief’ under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). Puffin FPSO Ltd opposed the application, arguing that the declarations were not urgent and that AED Oil had effectively waived their right to arbitration by initiating court proceedings.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the declarations sought by AED Oil constituted ‘urgent interlocutory or declaratory relief’ and whether AED Oil had waived their right to arbitration. The court had to interpret the terms of the arbitration agreement and consider the implications of AED Oil’s actions in initiating court proceedings. Justice Edelman found that the declarations AED Oil sought were not urgent, as they did not involve immediate enforcement or preservation of rights. Additionally, the court determined that AED Oil had waived their right to arbitration by commencing court proceedings and seeking relief that was not categorised as urgent.

As a result, Justice Edelman dismissed AED Oil’s application for a stay of proceedings. The court held that AED Oil could not enforce the declarations through the courts and that they had forfeited their right to arbitration by initiating the legal action. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the terms of an arbitration agreement and the consequences of seeking relief outside the arbitration process without meeting the criteria for urgent relief. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that parties must follow the agreed-upon dispute resolution mechanism unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise.

Orders