Please note for members of the public or practitioners in the legal profession where English is your second language a translation key in all languages of the world is available on this blog to assist you. The plain English blog without translation facilities is located at http://roberthaypropertybarrister.wordpress.com
In a fascinating decision given today the Supreme Court of Victoria held that an arbitration clause in a lease could not oust VCAT’s jurisdiction under the Retail Leases Act 2003 (2003 Act). In Subway Systems Australia Pty Ltd v Ireland  VSC 550 Croft J held that VCAT was not a “court” within the meaning of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Cmlth). The matter came before Croft J after a VCAT member declined to find that the Tribunal was bound to refer the dispute to arbitration under s.8 of the CAA. In broad terms s.8 of the CAA requires a court before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement to refer the matter to arbitration if one of the parties makes that request. Croft J held that VCAT was not a “court” for the purpose of s.8(1) of the CAA and therefore VCAT was not bound to refer the dispute to arbitration. His Honour also accepted that by the time s.8 of the CAA might be said by a party to a lease to be engaged, s.94 of the 2003 Act had already rendered void the clause requiring disputes under the lease to go to arbitration. Section 94(2) of the 2003 Act provides that a provision in a retail premises lease is void to the extent that it purport to exclude the application of a provision of the 2003 Act or to limit the right of a party to a lease to seek resolution of a retail tenancy dispute under Part 10 of the 2003 Act.
Author: Robert Hays Barrister subject to copyright under DMCA.
My clerk can be contacted via this link http://www.greenslist.com.au/ if you wish to retain my services for any legal matter which is within the gamut of my legal experience.