In Brief
An owner engaged a construction contractor (Appellant 1) under a written agreement containing an arbitration clause to rebuild his property. Later, the owner and the contractor's husband (Appellant 2) agreed orally to replace the contractor with Appellant 2 as supervisor. The appellants then sued seeking declarations that the original agreement was void and recovery of money under the oral arrangement. The High Court dismissed the suit as bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The Supreme Court held that both appellants could jointly sue as their claims arose from a related continuity of agreements. Since the original agreement had an arbitration clause and the oral agreement replaced it while maintaining the arbitration clause's applicability, the Court referred all disputes to the sole arbitrator already appointed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.