Lainson Holdings v Duffy Kennedy [2019] NSWSC 576 - podcast episode cover

Lainson Holdings v Duffy Kennedy [2019] NSWSC 576

Jun 25, 20197 min
--:--
--:--
Download Metacast podcast app
Listen to this episode in Metacast mobile app
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more

Episode description

Does an expert have to make her or his determination “according to law”?  

Not as silly a question as you might think.  A landowner and builder entered into a contract.   

The contract included a dispute resolution clause. The effect was that any dispute about the contract must be referred to an expert for determination “according to law”.  A dispute arose and an expert was appointed. The expert made a determination in favour of the builder.  

The landowner commenced Court proceedings disputing the determination.   It said the expert goofed in finding there was an implied term: [30]. It also said that when an expert makes a determination where a question of law becomes material, the Court can intervene if the expert makes a mistake of law: [31].  

The Court disagreed about the implied term. It then found the landowner’s submission works commercial inconvenience: if the landowner was right, then every expert determination would be open to appeal on every legal question determined if the question could be seen differently: [50].  

Expert determination is a contractual mechanism, not a judicial process; it is not subject to judicial correction if it includes a mistake of law as long as the determination was made in accordance with the contract: [60].

For the best experience, listen in Metacast app for iOS or Android