Lee v Lin - [2022] QCA 140

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lee v Lin & Anor [2022] QCA 140

PARTIES:

JUNGMIN LEE
(appellant)
v
ZEJIAN LIN
(first respondent)
GANG LIN
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 612 of 2022
SC No 11347 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2021] QSC 336 (Martin J)

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 July 2022

JUDGES:

Morrison and Dalton JJA and Kelly J

ORDERS:

1.    Allow the appeal.

2. Order that the parties are referred to arbitration pursuant to s 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013(Qld).

3.    Order that proceeding BS11347/21 be stayed.

4.    Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of this proceeding, both in the trial division and on appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

ARBITRATION – CONSTRUCTION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT OR REFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the parties entered into a contract whereby the appellant agreed to provide services as a migration agent to the respondents – where the respondents commenced proceedings against the appellant – where the appellant contends that the dispute resolution clause within the contract is an arbitration agreement within the meaning of s 7 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) – whether the dispute resolution clause is an arbitration agreement – whether the court must refer the parties to arbitration and grant a stay pursuant to s 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act

Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld), s 7, s 8

Cheshire Contractors Pty Ltd v Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd[2021] QCA 212, cited
Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd v AGL Energy Limited [2017] NSWCA 266, considered
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37, cited
Mulgrave Central Mill Company Ltd v Hagglunds Drives Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 514; [2001] QCA 471, considered
PMT Partners Pty Ltd v Australian National Parks & Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301; [1995] HCA 36, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Henry for the appellant
R A Kipps for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Sungdo Lawyers for the appellant
Irish Bentley Lawyers for the respondents

MORRISON JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Dalton JA. I agree with those reasons and with the orders proposed by her Honour.
DALTON JA: The dispute between the parties, the relevant legislation and the relevant contractual clause are all set out in the judgment of the primary judge:
“[1] In 2014, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a contract (‘the contract’) whereby the defendant agreed to provide services as a migration agent to the plaintiffs.
[2]In September 2021, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendant alleging, among other things, breach of contract and negligence (‘the proceeding’).

[3]In October 2021, the defendant filed a conditional notice of intention to defend.
[4]By this application, the defendant seeks orders that:
(a)the parties be referred to arbitration pursuant to s 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration…

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.

Continue reading Lee v Lin

Details

AGLC: Lee v Lin [2022] QCA 140
Case: [2022] QCA 140
Decision Date: 5 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Lin involved the appellant, who had entered into a contract with the respondents to provide services as a migration agent. The respondents initiated proceedings against the appellant, who argued that the dispute resolution clause in the contract constituted an arbitration agreement under section 7 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld). The appellant contended that the court should refer the parties to arbitration and grant a stay of the proceedings as per section 8(1) of the same Act. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dispute resolution clause in the contract constituted an arbitration agreement, and if so, whether the court was required to refer the parties to arbitration and grant a stay of the proceedings.

The court examined the language of the dispute resolution clause and determined that it did indeed constitute an arbitration agreement under section 7 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld). The court held that the plain language of the clause indicated the parties' intention to submit their disputes to arbitration. Consequently, the court found that it was obliged to refer the parties to arbitration and grant a stay of the proceedings as per section 8(1) of the Act. The court emphasised the importance of upholding the parties' intention to resolve their disputes through arbitration, as expressed in the contract.

The court allowed the appeal, ordering that the parties be referred to arbitration under section 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld). The court also ordered that the proceeding BS11347/21 be stayed. Furthermore, the court ordered that the respondents pay the appellant's costs of the proceeding, both in the trial division and on appeal. The court's decision underscored the significance of adhering to the parties' agreed-upon method of dispute resolution and the importance of enforcing arbitration agreements in accordance with the applicable legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Order that the parties are referred to arbitration pursuant to s 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld).

3. Order that proceeding BS11347/21 be stayed.

4. Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of this proceeding, both in the trial division and on appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Lee v Lin & Anor [2022] QCA 140
PARTIES:	JUNGMIN LEE (appellant) v ZEJIAN LIN (first respondent) GANG LIN (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 612 of 2022 SC No 11347 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2021] QSC 336 (Martin J)
DELIVERED ON:	5 August 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 July 2022
JUDGES:	Morrison and Dalton JJA and Kelly J
ORDERS:	1. Allow the appeal. 2. Order that the parties are referred to arbitration pursuant to s 8(1) of the **Commercial Arbitration Act 2013(Qld). 3. Order that proceeding BS11347/21 be stayed. 4. Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of this proceeding, both in the trial division and on appeal.**
CATCHWORDS:	ARBITRATION – CONSTRUCTION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT OR REFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the parties entered into a contract whereby the appellant agreed to provide services as a migration agent to the respondents – where the respondents commenced proceedings against the appellant – where the appellant contends that the dispute resolution clause within the contract is an arbitration agreement within the meaning of s 7 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) – whether the dispute resolution clause is an arbitration agreement – whether the court must refer the parties to arbitration and grant a stay pursuant to s 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld), s 7, s 8 Cheshire Contractors Pty Ltd v Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd[2021] QCA 212, cited Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd v AGL Energy Limited [2017] NSWCA 266, considered Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37, cited Mulgrave Central Mill Company Ltd v Hagglunds Drives Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 514; [2001] QCA 471, considered PMT Partners Pty Ltd v Australian National Parks & Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301; [1995] HCA 36, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Henry for the appellant R A Kipps for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Sungdo Lawyers for the appellant Irish Bentley Lawyers for the respondents