Bond Corporation Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd

In this case, Bond Corporation Pty Ltd (Bond) applied for leave to appeal against an order made by French J. on 20 January 1988, which restrained Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (Thiess) from prosecuting an arbitration against Bond. Bond had sued Thiess for breaches under the Trade Practices Act 1974 and for breach of contract. The primary legal issue was the nature of the review to which Thiess was entitled concerning the directions given by the Superintendent. Bond argued that the only remedy available to Thiess was to proceed against Bond in court or via arbitration for breach of a promise that the Superintendent would exercise his powers reasonably and equitably. Thiess, on the other hand, contended that clauses 23 and 49 together conferred a right to have all directions of the Superintendent reviewed in arbitration proceedings, irrespective of whether the Superintendent acted unreasonably or inequitably.

The Court considered the submissions of both parties and examined the relevant clauses of the contract. The Court noted that French J. had not made a final determination on the substantive issue but had exercised a discretion in a matter relating to practice and procedure. The Court concluded that Bond had not shown any error in the decision against which leave to appeal was sought. The Court dismissed the motion with costs, clarifying that its decision was not intended to determine any substantive matter between the parties.