The State of Western Australia v Mineralogy Pty Ltd

The State of Western Australia sought summary dismissal of a proceeding brought by Mineralogy Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned the interpretation of the relevant arbitration awards, the applicable arbitration legislation, and the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (WA) or the Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) governed the arbitration process and the claims made by Mineralogy. The court also had to consider whether the arbitrator had the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the awards and whether Mineralogy could pursue a claim for damages.

The court examined the transitional provisions of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (CAA (2012)) and concluded that the First Damages Claim, which arose before the CAA (2012) commenced, was governed by the Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (CAA (1985)). However, the Second Damages Claim and the Clause 7 Claim, which arose after the CAA (2012) commenced, were governed by the CAA (2012). The court found that the arbitrator was functus officio with respect to the First Arbitration and had no continuing jurisdiction over that arbitration. The court further determined that the parties had agreed that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the issues referred to him in the 2019 Award. The court held that the only avenue of relief available to Mineralogy was under the CAA (2012) because the dispute and the constitution of the arbitral tribunal occurred after the commencement of that Act.

The court dismissed the State's application for summary dismissal and ordered that the proceeding be determined under the CAA (2012). The court found that the State's arguments challenging the validity of the 2014 Award and the jurisdiction of the arbitrator were untenable and could not be pursued under the CAA (1985). The court also found that the State's argument that Mineralogy had not particularised the nature of the damages claimed was without merit because the court could determine the nature of the damages based on the submissions made by the parties.