JUDGE:	CROFT J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 May 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 June 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Robotunits Pty Ltd v Mennel
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 268	REVISED 13 July 2015

---

ARBITRATION – Stay of proceedings and referral to arbitration – International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s 7(2)(b) – Determination of a “matter” – Whether “matter” for determination must be sustainable or have reasonable prospects of success – Scope of arbitration agreement – Whether matters involving the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) are capable of settlement by arbitration – Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334 – Rinehart v Welker [2012] NSWCA 95 – Hancock v Rinehart (2013) 96 ACSR 76 – ACD Tridon Inc v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 896.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms T. Spencer Bruce	Hall & Wilcox Lawyers
For the Defendant	Dr M. Wolff	No solicitors on record

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background of the proceeding........................................................................................................ 1

The arbitration agreement................................................................................................................ 2

Principles applicable to applications to stay proceedings under the Act................................ 3

Requirements of s 7(2)(b) of the Act............................................................................................. 14

Determination of a matter.......................................................................................................... 15
Matter.................................................................................................................................. 15
Sustainable dispute........................................................................................................... 18

In pursuance of the agreement.................................................................................................. 26
Capable of settlement by arbitration........................................................................................ 33

Other matters..................................................................................................................................... 38

Conclusions and orders.................................................................................................................. 39

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for a stay of proceedings and referral to arbitration under s 7(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (“the Act”).

By Interlocutory Application for Stay and Referral to Arbitration — Foreign Arbitration Agreement filed on 31 March 2015, the Defendant, Mr Juergen Karl Mennel (“Mennel”) seeks:

(a) an order under s 7 of the Act staying the whole of this proceeding and referring the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the subject matter of this proceeding to arbitration;

(b) an order directing the parties to agree on the seat and the rules of the arbitration within 28 days, failing which either party may apply to the Court for determination of both; and

(c) such other orders as the Court may see fit.

The evidence before the Court in respect of the application is contained in the Defendant’s affidavit affirmed on 31 March 2015 (“the Mennel Affidavit”).

Background of the proceeding

By Writ and Statement of Claim filed on 26 February 2015, the Plaintiff, Robotunits Pty Ltd (“Robotunits”), seeks the return of the sum of $272,722.00 from Mennel, its former managing director.[1] Robotunits claims that between 19 and 25 January 2015, Mennel caused it to make five transfers to a bank account held in his name (“the Payments”). It is claimed that the Payments were made without a legal or equitable basis and in breach of Mennel’s duties as Robotunits’ managing director, under both the general law and the

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 Robotunits Pty Ltd v Mennel

Details

AGLC: Robotunits Pty Ltd v Mennel [2015] VSC 268
Case: [2015] VSC 268
Decision Date: 22 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Robotunits Pty Ltd v Mennel, the parties were engaged in a dispute concerning an arbitration agreement. The primary issue in this case was whether the court should stay the proceedings and refer the matter to arbitration, pursuant to section 7(2)(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). The dispute involved the interpretation of the scope of the arbitration agreement, specifically whether the matters in question were capable of being settled by arbitration, and if the matter for determination needed to be sustainable or have reasonable prospects of success.

The court had to determine whether the term "matter" in section 7(2)(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) required the matter for determination to be sustainable or have reasonable prospects of success. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the arbitration agreement covered matters involving the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The case drew upon various precedents, including Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd, Rinehart v Welker, Hancock v Rinehart, and ACD Tridon Inc v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd, to aid in its interpretation of the relevant legislation and arbitration agreement.

The court found that the term "matter" in section 7(2)(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) did not require the matter for determination to be sustainable or have reasonable prospects of success. It also determined that the arbitration agreement covered matters involving the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court concluded that the matters in question were capable of being settled by arbitration and ordered the proceedings to be stayed and referred to arbitration.

Orders