Chinadotcom Corporation v Hugh MORROW & Ors

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, in the matter of *Chinadotcom Corporation v Hugh MORROW & Ors*, considered an application for a stay of proceedings. The applicant, Chinadotcom Corporation, sought to stay proceedings commenced by the respondents, Hugh Morrow and others, based on an alleged agreement to refer disputes to the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre for "dispute resolution".

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the purported dispute resolution clause was void for uncertainty, thereby precluding the grant of a stay. The Court was also required to consider whether, even if the clause was not void, there were discretionary grounds to refuse the stay under section 110K of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW).

The Court reasoned that the phrase "for dispute resolution" was too vague to constitute a binding agreement to refer disputes to a specific forum or process. It found that the clause lacked the necessary certainty to be enforceable, as it did not specify the nature of the dispute resolution process or the body to which disputes would be referred. Consequently, the Court held that the agreement was void for uncertainty and that the applicant was not entitled to a stay of proceedings on that basis.

The Court refused the application for a stay of proceedings.