Australia / 29 June 2012 / Australia, Federal Court of Australia / Casaceli v. Natuzzi S.p.A. (formerly known as Industrie Natuzzi S.p.A.) / NSD 396 of 2012
Country | Australia |
Court | Australia, Federal Court of Australia |
Date | 29 June 2012 |
Parties | Casaceli v. Natuzzi S.p.A. (formerly known as Industrie Natuzzi S.p.A.) |
Case number | NSD 396 of 2012 |
Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(3) | II(1) |
Source |
[2012] FCA 691, online: AustLII |
Languages | English |
Summary | Industrie Natuzzi S.p.A. (“Natuzzi”), an Italian company, and Nataceli Pty Ltd (“Nataceli”), an Australian company, concluded a contract by which Natuzzi granted Nataceli exclusive rights to sell certain products in Australia (“the Contract”). The Contract contained a dispute resolution clause providing for arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Chamber of National and International Arbitration of Milan. A dispute arose and Natuzzi terminated the Contract. The directors of Nataceli, Mr. and Mrs Casaceli, as well as a trustee company controlled by Mr. and Mrs Casaceli (collectively, “the Applicants”), instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Natuzzi, along with another company and the managing director of that other company (collectively, “the Respondents”). The Respondents sought a stay of the proceedings and a referral to arbitration under s 7 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (“the Act”) (giving effect to NYC Article II(3) by providing that where proceedings instituted by a party to an arbitration agreement to which the Court determines the NYC applies are pending in a court, on the application of another party to the arbitration agreement, the court must stay the proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration). There was no dispute that the Contract contained an “arbitration agreement” for the purpose of s 3(1) of the Act (defining that term as meaning an agreement in writing of the kind referred to by Article II(1) NYC) and that court proceedings had been instituted by a party to that agreement, as required by s 7(2)(a) of the Act. However, the Applicants argued that the proceedings did not involve the determination of matters which, in pursuance of the agreement, were capable of settlement by arbitration, as required by s 7(2)(b) of the Act. In particular, they asserted that there were necessary and proper parties to the court proceedings which were not parties to the arbitration agreement. The Federal Court granted the application for a stay and made orders referring the parties to arbitration. In so ruling, the Court noted that the word “matter” has been held to be of “wide import” and not limited, for the purpose of s 7(2)(b) of the Act, to issues arising on the pleadings. It concluded that the fact that there were necessary and proper parties to the court proceedings which were not parties to the arbitration agreement did not militate against the grant of a stay and referral of the arbitrable claims to arbitration; rather, the non-arbitrable claims could be stayed pending completion of the arbitration. |
see also : |
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |