Passlow v Butmac Pty Ltd

Passlow was the owner of a property on which a building was constructed by Butmac. Following the construction, the building was found to be defective and Passlow sued Butmac for breach of contract. Butmac, in turn, sought to refer the dispute to arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause in their contract. Passlow opposed the referral, arguing that the arbitration clause was uncertain and did not cover the claim for contribution which Butmac had sought under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946. Passlow also opposed an application for discovery of documents, arguing that the categories of documents sought were oppressive. The matter came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was required to decide whether the arbitration clause was valid and whether the claim for contribution was covered by it, as well as whether the categories of documents sought were oppressive.

The court held that the arbitration clause was valid and sufficiently certain, and that it covered the claim for contribution which Butmac had sought under the Act. The court found that the clause was clear and unambiguous and that it provided a complete method of resolving disputes between the parties. The court also held that the categories of documents sought through discovery were not oppressive, and that the application for discovery should be granted. The court found that the categories of documents were relevant to the dispute and that there were no other means of obtaining the information.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales ordered that the matter be referred to arbitration, and that Butmac and Passlow comply with the discovery orders made by the court. The court found that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, and that it covered the claim for contribution which Butmac had sought. The court also found that the categories of documents sought were relevant to the dispute and that there were no other means of obtaining the information. The matter was referred to arbitration and the parties were ordered to comply with the discovery orders made by the court.