By way of example, in Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation v Onslow Salt Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1240, the Court stated that the inadequacy of the procedures for complex disputes was not a "deficiency" of the expert determination clause, but rather an indicator that it was only intended to deal with "simpler, more specific issues" than those the subject of the litigation. In this regard the Court noted the clause's "time constraints", the "very limited content" of its procedural aspects, and the fact that it contained "no facility… for compelling witnesses to give evidence and permitting cross-examination", as reasons why a stay should be refused and the litigation permitted to proceed. In Hooks Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sonnenberg Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 69, the Court stayed the proceeding, compelling the plaintiff to complete the expert determination procedure that the defendant had triggered by issuing a notice of dispute under the contract. This was despite the fact that the relevant clause did "not expressly provide a bar" to the commencement of legal proceedings. The Court did acknowledge that "a stay will not be granted if it would be unjust to deprive the plaintiff of the right to have his claim determined judicially" (Zeke Services Pty Ltd v Traffic Technologies Ltd [2005] 2 Qd R 563). However, the onus of proving that exception is a heavy one - "The court should not lightly conclude that the agreed mechanism is inappropriate." Challenge to expert determination: Lipman Pty Ltd v Empire Facades [2017] NSWCA 217 When considering potential challenges to an expert determination, the key principles for consideration are as follows. • The effect of an expert determination depends on the terms of the contract (Legal & General Life of Australia Ltd v A Hudson Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 314). • The absence of the words "final and binding" is not determinative of whether the parties intend a determination to be final and binding.