Resources

Contractual Interpretation: When does “may” mean “must” in a dispute resolution clause?

Case note | WA | November 2012 | Available for purchase & free for members

Cape Lambert Resources Ltd v MCC Australia Sanjin Mining Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 228

Abstract

The recent decision of Corboy J in Cape Lambert Resources Ltd v MCC Australia Sanjin Mining Pty Ltd (‘Cape Lambert v MCC Australia’) highlights the need for parties to be precise when drafting dispute resolution clauses to ensure certainty, as well as safeguarding the parties’ ability to enforce the dispute resolution clause in the event of a dispute.

The case is also instructive as it confirms the courts’ preference to construe a dispute resolution clause containing a right to arbitrate as an enforceable arbitration agreement in the event of ambiguity.

Read the case note here ACCESS THE JOURNAL

Thanks

We thank the author of this case note Tamara Watson and the journal editor Russell Thirgood for their contribution to this journal.

Tags: Arbitration, Legal practice, Building and construction, Dispute handling administration