Bitannia Pty Limited v Rossfield Nominees (ACT) Pty Limited

In Bitannia Pty Limited v Rossfield Nominees (ACT) Pty Limited, the plaintiff, Bitannia, sought declarations and orders that would facilitate the sale of strata units. Bitannia alleged that it had an agreement with Rossfield that the units would be sold upon registration of the plan. The plaintiff sought declarations to that effect, orders for Rossfield to co-operate in selling, and the appointment of trustees for the sale of jointly owned property under the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). The case came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendant, Rossfield, argued for a stay of proceedings.

The primary legal issues in the case involved the enforceability of an arbitration clause and the applicability of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) in the context of strata title units. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff's claims should be referred to arbitration, even though the arbitrator might lack the power to make orders under the Conveyancing Act. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff's claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and if there were any reasons to stay the proceedings under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW).

In its judgment, the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that there was no good reason why the principal dispute should not be referred to arbitration. The court reasoned that even if the arbitrator lacked the power to make orders under the Conveyancing Act, the substantive issues concerning the alleged agreement and the sale of strata units were still subject to arbitration. The court concluded that the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the plaintiff's claims, and therefore, the proceedings should be stayed pending arbitration. Consequently, the court granted Rossfield's application for a stay of proceedings under section 53(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW).

The court's final orders were that the proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. The plaintiff's claims were to be determined by an arbitrator in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The court emphasised that its decision was limited to the question of the stay of proceedings and did not address the merits of the plaintiff's claims.