The applicant sought an order appointing an arbitrator to resolve a construction subcontract payment and delay dispute.
The respondent argued that notice provisions in the prime contract barred the claim and that arbitration risked multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.
The court held the subcontract plainly required arbitration of disputes arising from the subcontract and that, because no appointment procedure was provided, s. 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 authorized the court to appoint a single arbitrator.
The court further held the notice provisions had not been breached and that any concern about parallel proceedings was speculative.
The requested arbitrator was appointed.
