M1 v L1

In M1 v L1, the parties engaged in a contractual dispute which was referred to a "Wise Man" for resolution under the terms of a commercial deed. The "Wise Man" was to be selected from a list of former justices of the Supreme Court of New South Wales or the Federal Court of Australia. The nature of the dispute involved interpreting the role of the "Wise Man" under the deed, particularly whether this role constituted an arbitration or an expert determination, and whether the agreement to have the "Wise Man" determine disputes was contrary to public policy and void as an ouster of the jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the court were the classification of the "Wise Man" as either an arbitrator or an expert, and the potential implications of such a classification under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement to have the "Wise Man" make binding decisions on disputes was an unlawful ouster of the court's jurisdiction. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether there was strong evidence of a manifest error of law that could lead to the court granting leave to appeal from the arbitration decision.

The court found that the "Wise Man" mechanism constituted an expert determination rather than arbitration. This conclusion was based on the nature of the powers granted to the "Wise Man" and the terms of the commercial deed. The court held that the agreement to have the "Wise Man" resolve disputes did not constitute an ouster of the jurisdiction because the "Wise Man" was not acting as an arbitrator but as an expert. The court further found that there was no evidence of a manifest error of law that would warrant leave to appeal from the arbitration decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the binding nature of the "Wise Man's" determination.