APM Group (Aust) Pty Ltd v Galwin Pty Ltd

APM Group (Aust) Pty Ltd (APM) and Galwin Pty Ltd (Galwin) were parties to a building contract. A dispute arose under the contract, and the contract stipulated that disputes should be determined by an expert. The dispute in question was whether APM had followed the stipulated timetable for the determination and whether Galwin's purported withdrawal from the agreement rendered the expert's determination void. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the Court had to determine was whether the timetable for expert determination, as stipulated in the contract, was adhered to by APM. The Court also had to decide whether Galwin's purported withdrawal from the agreement invalidated the expert's determination. The Court's analysis focused on the contract terms, the conduct of both parties, and the procedural fairness of the expert determination process.

The Court held that APM had not strictly adhered to the stipulated timetable but had acted with procedural fairness. The Court found that Galwin's purported withdrawal did not affect the binding nature of the expert's determination. The Court concluded that the expert's determination was valid and binding, as the contract's purpose of resolving disputes through expert determination was upheld despite procedural deviations. The Court rejected Galwin's argument that the expert's determination was void due to their purported withdrawal.

The Court ordered that the expert's determination be enforced and that APM pay the costs associated with the proceedings. The Court did not grant any relief to Galwin and dismissed their claims in their entirety.