• thynne-macartney-logo
  • Expertise
  • People
  • About Us
  • News & Insights
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
  • Dye & Durham Refund
  • Pay Invoice

Court action stayed by party not named in arbitration agreement

05 June 2023

In an interesting recent decision, which confirms a peculiar operation of commercial arbitration legislation, Thynne + Macartney obtained a stay of proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in favour of arbitration for a defendant director who was not a named party to the arbitration agreement.

The proceedings concerned a digital asset trading business specialising in foreign exchange and cryptocurrencies (the trader). The defendant was the sole director and shareholder of the trader.

The plaintiff was a customer of the trader.

The trader and customer executed a Master Purchase Agreement (MPA) which enabled the trader to purchase digital assets on the customer’s behalf and trade them on FTX Trading Limited (FTX), then the largest international cryptocurrency exchange. The MPA contained an arbitration clause, which required disputes to be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Rules.

In November 2022, FTX collapsed. The customer claimed it should not have been subjected to third party risk via trading on FTX and commenced court proceedings against the trader’s director alleging accessorial liability for misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

The defendant director applied to stay the legal proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to s 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (CAA) and in reference to the arbitration agreement in the MPA. The primary issue was whether the defendant director, although not named in the MPA, should be recognised as a party to the arbitration agreement in the MPA.

Decision

Section 2(1) of the CAA defines a party to arbitration as including “any person claiming through or under a party to the arbitration agreement”. It was successfully argued that the defendant fell within this extended definition, relying on Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O’Brien (1990) 169 CLR 332 and Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 514.

Rees J found that the defendant’s position “fell comfortably” within the meaning of “through or under”, citing Tanning Research and Rinehart v Hancock. The court reasoned that because the defendant intended to defend the customer’s claim on the basis that the trader did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct (and thus no accessorial liability could arise), he was taking a stand upon a ground which was available to the trader. Consequently, the defendant was standing in the same position as the trader vis a vis the customer. This was a decisive factor and her Honour held that: (a) the defendant was a party under s 2(1) of the CAA; and (b) consequently, the defendant was entitled to a stay of the proceedings under s 8 of the CAA.

The matter was King River Digital Assets Opportunities SPC v Salerno [2023] NSWSC 510.

Assistance provided by Tabitha St George, Law Clerk. 

This information is intended to provide a general summary only and should not be relied on as a substitute for legal advice.

About the Author

Marc Maskell
Marc Maskell
Partner Ph: +61 7 3231 8829 Email: mmaskell@thymac.com.au

News & Insights

Best Lawyers Australia recognises Michael Fisher, Matthew Hockaday and Alex Ramsey as Lawyers of the Year

Best Lawyers Australia recognises Michael Fisher, Matthew Hockaday and Alex Ramsey as Lawyers of the Year

Read More
Jos Basson boosts Thynne + Macartney’s Disputes + Insolvency practice

Jos Basson boosts Thynne + Macartney’s Disputes + Insolvency practice

Read More
Court action stayed by party not named in arbitration agreement

Court action stayed by party not named in arbitration agreement

Read More
More than junk mail: Some post you should never ignore

More than junk mail: Some post you should never ignore

Read More

Stay updated

Get the latest news straight to your inbox

Subscribe to receive the latest updates from us!

Pick the area or areas of law that interest you.

Subscribe

Contact Us

  • 07 3231 8888
  • 07 3229 0855
  • mail@thymac.com.au
      • linkedin-logo

 

Liability limited by a scheme approved
under professional standards legislation.

Brisbane Office
  • Level 32, Riverside Centre
    123 Eagle Street
    BRISBANE QLD 4000
Cairns Office
  • Level 1, Moresby Haus
    4 Scott Street
    CAIRNS QLD 4870

  • 07 3231 8888
  • 07 3229 0855
  • mail@thymac.com.au
      • linkedin-logo

 

Liability limited by a scheme approved
under professional standards legislation.

  • © Thynne + Macartney 2025
    • Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy