Li v Mi (No. 2)

[2017] ACTSC 318

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Li v Mi (No. 2)

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 318

Hearing Date:

4 October 2017

DecisionDate:

30 October 2017

Before:

McWilliam AsJ

Decision:

1.    That the Interim Arbitral Award given in Arbitration proceedings with the designation IAMA # 5073 delivered on 20 August 2016 be registered as a judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $217,454.34 including interest.

2.    The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

Catchwords:

ARBITRATION - COMMERICAL ARBITRATION - Registration of interim arbitral award – no point of principle

Legislation Cited:

Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 (ACT) ss 33, 38, 42, 48
Commercial Arbitration Act 2017 (ACT) s 201
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 1901, 3254, 3260

Cases Cited:

Armacel Pty Ltd v Smurfit Stone Container Corporation [2008] FCA 592; 248 ALR 573

Cadoroll Pty Limited & Others v Mauntill Pty Limited [2000] ACTSC 79
Carl Zeiss Stiftung and Others v Rayner and Others[No 2] [1967] 1 AC 853
Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3) (1994) 35 NSWLR
Dale v Western Australia [2011] FCAFC 46; 191 FCR 521
Henderson v Henderson [1843] EngR 917; (1843) 3 Hare 100
Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; 220 CLR 363
Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 434; 263 ALR 556
Mi v Li [2017] ACTSC 54
Notaras & Anor v St George Bank Ltd & Ors [2005] ACTSC 5; 157 ACTR 1
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Wagdy Hanna and Associates Pty Ltd v National Library of Australia [2012] ACTSC 126

Parties:

Zheng Kai Li (Plaintiff)

Wai Man Mi (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

R Vivekananda (Plaintiff)

Self-represented (Defendant)

Solicitors

Baker Deane & Nutt (Plaintiff)

Self-represented (Defendant)

File Number:

SC 204 of 2017

McWilliam AsJ:

1. The plaintiff in these proceedings seeks to register an Interim Arbitral Award with the designation IAMA # 5073 given in arbitration proceedings and delivered on 20 August 2016 in the sum of $205,121.75 (Award) as a judgment of the Court in favour of the plaintiff.  The plaintiff further seeks an order that the defendant pay pre-judgement interest on the sum of the Award.

The present dispute

1. The arbitration proceedings that led to the Award arose out of an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, concerning the construction of a residential dwelling in Franklin. 

1. The defendant has already unsuccessfully sought to set aside the Award in this Court by way of an appeal under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 (ACT) (Act): see Mi v Li [2017] ACTSC 54 (Mi v Li). 

1. The defendant now resists the application for enforcement, primarily because he says that the plaintiff is not the contractual party to the agreement.  He contends that the agreement was assigned by the plaintiff to Kai Design and Construction Pty Ltd.  The defendant has filed an application (on 15 September 2017) seeking a declaration to…