Proctor : September 2018
17 PROCTOR | September 2018 Different, better. email@example.com schultzlaw.com.au Sunshine Coast 07 5406 7405 Brisbane 07 3121 3240 Gold Coast 07 5512 6149 Michael Callow Travis Schultz What can your client expect when you refer them to us? As a social justice law firm, we are focused on making a positive difference in people’s lives and want affordable legal services to be accessible to all. We do this by keeping our fees lower than the industry average and charge only on the government set Federal Court Scale. Because we want our clients to always get more, in the exceptional case when a cap on costs is to be applied, we cap our fees at only one third of the settlement, rather than apply the normal 50/50 rule. The best of both worlds – lower fees and experience Lower fees does not mean you have to compromise on expertise. Both Travis Schultz and Michael Callow are accredited specialists, each with over 25 years’ experience and provide a personal service everyone can access. Now that is different, better. • Cutting edge expertise, without the price tag. • Compensation and insurance experts. • No win, no pay. • No uplift fees. • No litigation lending for outlays and no interest charges. Arbitration Notes 1  QSC 87. 2  QCA 39. 3 Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Mio Art Pty Ltd  QCA 39, . 4 Ibid, . 5 Ibid, . 6 Ibid, . 7 Ibid, . 8 Ibid, . 9  VSC 163. 10  VSC 163, 16. 11 Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) s34A(1)(a). 12 Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) s34A(1)(b). 13 John Holland Pty Ltd v Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd (No.2)  QSC 48. This article appears courtesy of the Queensland Law Society Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee. Russell Thirgood is a partner and Head of Arbitration at McCullough Robertson Lawyers. Erika Williams is a senior associate at McCullough Robertson Lawyers and a member of the committee. The authors would like to thank Tom Hannah, a graduate at McCullough Robertson Lawyers, for his assistance in the preparation of this article. Important notes For anyone looking to challenge an arbitral award, it is important to note that there are strictly limited circumstances in which the court will set aside an arbitral award under s34 or allow an appeal of an award under s34A of the Act. Australian courts have demonstrated that they will use their best endeavours to uphold arbitral awards. Parties bringing set aside applications or appeals should also consider the manner in which they present their applications to the court, bearing in mind that bringing a frivolous application or presenting an application in an oppressive manner could result in an indemnity costs order.13 Finally, since s34A of the Act came into effect, due to the requirement for parties to agree to a right to appeal on a question of law, you should consider whether it is in your client’s interest to agree to maintain this right. For example, if your client would like the benefit of a quick, efficient and confidential arbitration but the dispute is in relation to a high-value claim or your client has a strong case in law, it may serve your client to maintain a right of appeal on a question of law. In this case, you should consider drafting such an agreement into the arbitration clause. On the contrary, if your client would be best served by maintaining the final and binding nature of an arbitration award, you should be wary of any arbitration clause or agreement which includes an agreement to a right of appeal on a question of law.