Ballantyne Building Constructions Pty Ltd, Re [1992] QSC 274 [1994] 2 Qd R 1

A TR.4J'\SCR1PT OF PROCEEDI~GS /!'fi -;; c ~~/;x 7 il- S:..aie Re?:>l.i.."'lg Bure2u, ~lh Floor, The U";l,.' Coun.s, George St..-eet, BRJSBA..~"E. 0. 4000 Tel. (07) 227 .·060 (Copyright in t!Us t::r"-.:.r...script is vested in the Cro,..,11. Copies thert:e>f must not be made or .sold ~·ithout tl)e wrinen autlJority of the Dl.rector, State Re?Orting Bu.:·eau.) .... .. . . .. ··- ..... - SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND '' CHAMBERS ( de JERSEY J OS No 59 of 1992 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT 1990 ( \ IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: BALLANTYNE BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD and FRESHA PRODUCTS (NQ) PTY LTD BRISBANE .. DATE 21/7/92 ORDER 1 ·.;;· Claimant Respondent .. -- 1 of 3 -- 210792 ORDER. HIS HONOUR: This is an application for leave to appeal from part of an arbitrator's award. The application is made under s 38(4) (b) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990. Under that provision an appeal may be brought "with the leave of the Supreme Court." A query has been raised before me whether that reference to the "Supreme Court" may mean the Court of Appeal. The basis of the query is the decision Capricorn Inks Pty Ltd v Lawter International (Australasia) Pty Ltd, (1989) 1 Qd R 8. That was a decision relating to the Arbitration Act 1973. Counsel have persuaded me that there is ground for distinguishing between the 1973 and the 1990 Acts for present purposes. "Supreme Court" is not defined under the Commercial Arbitration Act, although "the Court" is, but not helpfully. I am satisfied, however, that the court constituted by a single judge may exercise the jurisdiction to grant leave under s 38(4) (b). That is made clear, if by nothing else, by s 58(2) and s 59(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1991. The form of the provision says that the jurisdiction of the court which is not "required" to be exercised by the Court of Appeal is to be exercised by the Court in the Trial Division. The other provision says that all proceedings in the Trial Division are to be heard and disposed of before a single judge. There is no ''requirement" that an application such as triis be heard by the Court of Appeal. 2 10 0 () ~0 0 50 -- 2 of 3 -- I I ' 210792 I rule, therefore, that the matter may be heard by the Court constituted by a judge sitting alone. The application must otherwise be adjourned, however, because of the need of the applicant to consider filing further material in response to some material recently received from the respondent. I therefore order that the application be adjourned to a date to be fixed and reserve costs. 3 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 3 of 3 --