There are a number of good reasons to include
a dispute resolution clause in a contract.
Conflict is often an unforeseen and messy business. If and when it occurs, a clearly drafted
dispute resolution clause will be a welcome point of reference to work through
the dispute. It will provide certainty at
a time when the last thing the parties need is a sub-dispute about how to go
about trying to resolve the dispute.
Cost minimisation is another benefit.
If there is an agreed process, the parties can focus their attention on
working through that process as efficiently as possible. Ideally the dispute resolution process
produces an outcome and further cost savings by avoiding the more expensive
path of litigation.
A dispute resolution clause can also assist preservation of the parties’
relationship. Often the parties will
want to have a positive ongoing commercial or working relationship. Without a dispute resolution clause, the
parties may not contemplate an alternative dispute resolution process. Alternatively, they may not be inclined to
suggest it at an early stage for fear it might be perceived as a sign of
weakness.
Tiered Dispute Resolution Clauses are becoming more common in commercial
contracts. They provide for dispute
resolution by way of a series of steps. The
parties progress to the next step if the previous one has not achieved
resolution. For example, the first step
might be for company representatives to meet, and if that does not produce an outcome,
then they may proceed to mediation, followed by arbitration if necessary.
If drafted
carefully a tiered dispute resolution clause can be a commercial and
cost-effective dispute resolution mechanism.
If not, then it can provide for unnecessarily complex and expensive
layers of dispute resolution requirements and / or a vehicle for a party to
exercise tactical delays.
It is important to
ensure that a dispute resolution clause is tailored to suit the parties’ needs. A broadly worded clause such as one which
provides for alternative dispute resolution "if a dispute arises from or
in connection with this contract" would mean many kinds of disputes would
be referred. The parties may not want
such broad scope. For example, they may
prefer that the dispute resolution clause only apply to disputes arising from
breach of contract. Where there is a
technical point of law which needs to be judicially determined, or a scenario
where urgent interlocutory relief such as an injunction is envisaged, then the parties
may not want a dispute resolution clause to apply. A common express contractual
term is to the effect that “Nothing shall prejudice the right of a party to
seek injunctive or urgent declaratory relief.”
Dispute Resolution
clauses must not seek to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts. However they can, and often do, effectively provide
that the dispute resolution process is a condition precedent to litigation.
The judicial trend
is to give
effect to dispute resolution clauses provided they are drafted clearly, without
ambiguity and with identification of process (WTE Co-Generation & Anor –v-
RCR Energy P/L & Anor [2013] VSC 314).
Termination of a contract is not likely to negate the continued operation of a
dispute resolution clause unless expressly agreed (Jamac Construction Group
Pty Ltd v De Mol Investments Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 273; Pipeline Services WA Pty Ltd v ATCO Gas
Australia Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 10
(S)). Furthermore, failure to
comply with a dispute resolution clause, or with reasonable offers to engage in alternative dispute
resolution or enter into settlement negotiations, can ultimately result in
adverse costs orders (Haniotis v The
Owners Corporation Strata Plan 64915 (No. 2) [2014] NSWDC 39; John Richard Bryant v Hawkesbury Radio
Communication Co-operative Society Limited [2014] NSWSC 848).
