You are asked to give legal advice to ACo, a construction company in Sydney. ACo had a contract to build a plant in China for
The post Legal advice to ACo, a construction company in Sydney first appeared on COMPLIANT PAPERS.
You are asked to give legal advice to ACo, a construction company in Sydney. ACo had a contract to build a plant in China for a small company there, PRCCo. It includes a clause providing for any disputes to be resolved by a sole arbitrator under the ACICA Arbitration Rules (2021), if no settlement can be reached under the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules in China.
ACo encountered delays in meeting its contract deadline, and negotiations and mediation were unsuccessful, so PRCCo commenced an ACICA arbitration. Then a new contract with an extended deadline was agreed, with any disputes to be resolved by three arbitrators under the ACICA Rules (2021). But PRCCo soon decides that that ACo will not be able to meet the extended deadline, so PRCCo commences a second ACICA arbitration.
Question 2.A: Can ACo likely succeed in consolidating this arbitration with the first one, which was only suspended but not yet terminated?
After the dispute arose with PRCCo, ACo had commenced an arbitration against SingCo in Singapore, claiming that this architect’s firm was partly responsible for ACo’s delays vis-à-vis PRCco. ACo had contracted with SingCo for design services related to the project in China, including a clause for ACICA arbitration plus an express opt-in to section 24 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).
Question 2.B: Can ACo likely now obtain consolidation of the arbitration with SingCo over these delays, with its first, second or any arbitration already commenced with PRCCo?
ACo also believes that the delays are caused by problems from NZCo in New Zealand, a construction company that ACo had engaged as a subcontractor for one part of the project with PRCCo. That subcontract included an arbitration clause whereby ACo and NZCo agreed to ACICA arbitration for any common question of law or fact arising under any ACICA arbitration between ACo and PRCCo regarding the project in China.
Question 2.C: Can ACo likely join NZCo to the first, second or any consolidated ACICA arbitration, especially if PRCCo objects because it is concerned about possible extra arbitration costs and delays to itself as well as more risk of disputes over the project becoming publicly known? Would ACo be violating any confidentiality duties by seeking to join NZco, especially if NZco ends up successfully resisting the application for joinder under the ACICA Arbitration Rules?
ACo also believes that the delays are caused by problems from NZCo in New Zealand, a construction company that ACo had engaged as a subcontractor for one part of the project with PRCCo. That subcontract included an arbitration clause whereby ACo and NZCo agreed to ACICA arbitration for any common question of law or fact arising under any ACICA arbitration between ACo and PRCCo regarding the project in China.
Question 2.C: Can ACo likely join NZCo to the first, second or any consolidated ACICA arbitration, especially if PRCCo objects because it is concerned about possible extra arbitration costs and delays to itself as well as more risk of disputes over the project becoming publicly known? Would ACo be violating any confidentiality duties by seeking to join NZco, especially if NZco ends up successfully resisting the application for joinder under the ACICA Arbitration Rules?
The post Legal advice to ACo, a construction company in Sydney first appeared on COMPLIANT PAPERS.
