It is not uncommon for parties to agree that certain disputes should be referred to an expert for determination. However, when those disputes arise, the parties may disagree about the scope of the exercise to be carried out by the expert or the powers of the expert, and this can lead to satellite litigation.
This was the situation underlying the recent
The judgment is a useful reminder of how contractual provisions referring disputes to an expert should be interpreted and applied and when the court will intervene in the process. A copy of the judgment can be accessed here.
What Was the Dispute About?
The dispute arose out of two contracts for the sale of
In
Harbour and
To avoid this derailing the referee process and delaying the referee's decision of the alternative source of price information for the Urals Assessment, Harbour commenced Part 8 proceedings seeking a declaration that no further explanation to or instruction of the referee is required before the referee is to perform his function under the contractual referee procedure.
What Was the Question for the Court?
The two key issues for the court to decide were:
- should the court express a view as to the ambit of the referee's decision-making powers before the referee has exercised his powers? and
- if so, what guidance, if any, should be given to the referee in relation to the exercise of those powers?
What Did the Court Decide?
The court determined that it should not express a view on the ambit of the referee's decision-making powers and granted the declaratory relief sought by Harbour.
The judgment discusses the relevant authorities (including the recent decision in Apache -v- Esso, which we considered in our previous briefing here) and sets out a useful summary of the principles to be applied when considering the scope and application of expert determination provisions.
The key points arising from the judgment are:
- the ordinary principles of contractual interpretation will apply to expert determination provisions;
- if the issue referred to the court for determination is within the matters remitted to the expert, then the court should not interfere in the absence of fraud or collusion;
- the fact that the issue which the expert is required to determine requires him/her to reach conclusions on the proper construction of the contract does not prevent the expert from reaching those conclusions, though they may be open to review by the court;
- the court will not usually intervene in the process before an expert has completed their task;
- the court may, however, intervene at its discretion if the issue in dispute is real, rather than hypothetical, and if it is in the interests of justice and convenience for the court to do so; and
- the court should be careful not to re-write the terms of the dispute resolution mechanism even if one party may no longer regard that regime to be satisfactory.
Applying these principles, the court agreed with Harbour in determining that this was not an appropriate case in which to intervene in the process and provide advance guidance to the referee on the scope of his jurisdiction. This was, in particular, because there was no evidence to suggest that the referee's decision will be one which is or is likely to be outside of the scope of his jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The impact of the sanctions imposed on
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Bracewell
Suite 2300
77002-2770
Tel: 212508.6100
Fax: 212508.6101
E-mail: Jay.plum@bracewell.com
URL: www.bracewell.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source