Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST VIC 8007 AUSTRALIA
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY NSW 2001 AUSTRALIA
Telephone: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3709 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 2600
Facsimile: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3217 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 3044 Internet:

User Tools

Site Tools



This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

enforcement_of_an_arbitration_award [2016/05/10 14:57]
steve [2015]
enforcement_of_an_arbitration_award [2017/07/30 18:00]
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitration Award ====== 
-====== Conventions ====== 
-  * [[http://​​pdf/​1958NYConvention.pdf|1958 - Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards - the "New York" Convention]] 
-  * [[http://​​pdf/​english/​texts/​arbitration/​NY-conv/​A2E.pdf|2006 - Recommendation regarding the interpretation of article II (2) and article VII (1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)]] 
-  * [[http://​​au/​legis/​nsw/​consol_act/​caa2010219/​s19.html|UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With amendments as adopted in 2006]] 
-  * [[http://​​pdf/​english/​texts/​arbitration/​NY-conv/​NYCDay-e.pdf|Enforcing Awards under the New York Convention]] 
-  * [[http://​​uncitral/​uncitral_texts/​arbitration/​1985Model_arbitration.html|1985 - UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration,​ with amendments as adopted in 2006]] 
-====== Legislation ====== 
-  * [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​|International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth)]] 
-    * [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​s7.html|s7 - Enforcement of foreign arbitration agreements]] 
-    * [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​s8.html|s8 - Recognition of foreign awards]], [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​s8.html|s8(3A)]],​ [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​s8.html|s8(7)]],​ [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​s8.html|s8(7A)]] 
-    * [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​s16.html|s16 - Model Law to have force of law]]  
-    * [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​s18b.html|s18B Article 17B -- preliminary order]] 
-    * [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​s19.html|s19 - Articles 17I, 34 and 36 of Model Law--public policy]] ​ 
-    * [[http://​​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​iaa1974276/​s39.html|s39 - Matters to which court must have regard]] ​ 
-====== Cases ====== 
-===== 2015 ===== 
-  * [[Emirates Trading Agency Llc v Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Private Ltd]] (([2015] EWHC 1452 (Comm) )) 
-  * [[Giedo van der Garde v Sauber Motorsport|Giedo van der Garde BV v Sauber Motorsport AG]] (([2015] VSC 80)) 
-  * [[Giedo van der Garde v Sauber Motorsport|Giedo van der Garde BV v Sauber Motorsport AG (No 2)]] (([2015] VSC 109)) 
-  * [[Hebei Jikai Industrial Group v Martin|Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co Ltd v Martin]] (([2015] FCA 228)) 
-  * [[Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd v Gutnick]] (([2015] VSC 724)) 
-  * [[Giedo van der Garde v Sauber Motorsport|Sauber Motorsport AG v Giedo van der Garde BV & Ors]] (([2015] VSCA 37)) 
-  * [[Ye v Zeng]] (([2015] FCA 1192)) 
-===== 2014 ===== 
-  * [[KNM Process Systems SDN BHD v Mission Newenergy Ltd formerly known as Mission Biofuels Ltd]] (([2014] WASC 437)) 
-  * [[Beijing Be Green Import & Export Co Ltd v Elders International Australia Pty Ltd]] (([2014] FCA 1375)) 
-  * [[International Relief and Development Inc v Ladu]] (([2014] FCA 887)) 
-  * [[Armada v Gujarat NRE Coke|Armada (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Under Judicial Management) v Gujarat NRE Coke Limited]] (([2014] FCA 636)) 
-  * [[Emerald Grain Australia v Agrocorp International|Emerald Grain Australia Pty Ltd v Agrocorp International Pte Ltd]] (([2014] FCA 414)) 
-  * [[Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Private Ltd]] (([2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm) )) 
-===== 2013 ===== 
-  * [[Dampskibsselskabet Nordon v Gladstone Civil|Dampskibsselskabet Nordon A/S v Gladstone Civil Pty Ltd]] (([2013] FCAFC 107)) 
-  * [[Gujarat NRE Coke v Coeclerici Asia|Gujarat NRE Coke Limited v Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd]] (([2013] FCAFC 109)) 
-  * [[Eopply New Energy Technology v EP Solar|Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd]] (([2013] FCA 356)) 
-  * [[NRE Coke v Coeclerici Asia|NRE Coke Ltd & Anor v Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd]] (([2013] EWHC 1987 (Comm) )) 
-  * [[TCL Air Conditioner v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia|TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia]] (([2013] HCA 5)) 
-  * [[Gujarat NRE Coke v Coeclerici Asia|Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd v Gujarat NRE Coke Limited]] (([2013] FCA 882)) 
-===== 2012 ===== 
-  * [[Wah v Grant Thornton International|Wah (Aka Alan Tang) & Anor v Grant Thornton International Ltd & Ors]] (([2012] EWHC 3198 (Ch) )) 
-  * [[Dampskibsselskabet Nordon v Beach Building & Civil Group|Dampskibsselskabet Nordon A/S v Beach Building & Civil Group Pty Ltd]] (([2012] FCA 696)) 
-  * [[Traxys Europe v Balaji Coke Industry|Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd (No 2)]](([2012] FCA 276)) 
-  * [[West Tankers v Allianz|West Tankers Inc v Allianz SPA & Anor]](([2012] EWCA Civ 27)) 
-  * [[Rizhao|Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd]] 
-  * [[castel_electronics_v_tcl_air_conditioner_zhongshan|Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd]](([2012] FCA 21)) 
-===== 2011 ===== 
-  * **[[ESCO Corporation v Bradken Resources|ESCO Corporation v Bradken Resources Pty Limited]](([2011] FCA 905))** 
-      * Foster, J, p85- 
-        * **Proceedings to enforce adjourned until a date early in the new Law Term of 2012 upon condition that security in accordance with the requirements which I have specified at [90] above is provided by the end of August 2011.** 
-        * The discretion to adjourn an enforcement proceeding pursuant to s 8(8) of the IAA is a wide one.  
-        * But it has to be exercised against the background that a foreign arbitral award is to be enforced in Australia unless one of the grounds in s 8(5) of the IAA is made out by the party against whom the award is sought to be enforced or unless the public policy of Australia requires that the award not be enforced. ​ 
-        * The pro-enforcement bias of the Convention and its domestic surrogate, the IAA, requires that this Court weigh very carefully all relevant factors when considering whether to adjourn a proceeding pursuant to s 8(8) of the IAA.  
-        * The discretion must be exercised against the obligation of the Court to pay due regard to the objects of the IAA and the spirit and intendment of the Convention. 
-        * In the present case: 
-          * Given that the US District Court has found that the arguments advanced by Bradken in support of its application to set aside the Award in part are not frivolous but are plainly arguable, I think that I should regard Bradken’s applications in both the US District Court and in the US Appeals Court as having been made bona fide. 
-          * If an adjournment is not granted, Bradken will be denied an opportunity to seek to persuade this Court that the Award should not be enforced by relying upon the ground specified in s 8(5)(f) of the IAA. It currently has on foot an application for a stay of the first instance judgment of the US District Court and an application to set aside the Award in part. 
-          * In the arbitration agreement, the parties chose Oregon as the seat of the arbitration and Oregon law as the law which was to govern the interpretation of the Licence Agreement. 
-          * The first forum chosen by ESCO as the jurisdiction in which it would seek to enforce the Award was the US District Court. Bradken was entitled to seek to “vacate” the Award in part in the confirmation proceedings commenced by ESCO.  
-          * The US District Court and the US Appeals Court are more appropriate venues than this Court to determine all questions of the validity and enforcement of the Award. 
-          * Those questions involve US law. 
-          * ESCO did not seek to enforce the Award in Australia until after the US District Court entered judgment in its favour in May 2011.  
-          * It came to Australia only after it failed in its bid to secure interest on the amount of the legal costs awarded to it at the higher rate provided under the State law of Oregon. ​ 
-          * It could have sought to enforce the Award in Australia in June 2010 but chose not to do so at that time. 
-          * The present proceeding raises interesting and difficult questions as to the correct interpretation of s 51A of the Federal Court Act and its application in circumstances where (as here) a party seeking to enforce a foreign arbitral award under the IAA has failed to secure an award of post-award pre-judgment interest in its home jurisdiction and only secured post-judgment interest at a negligible rate. 
-          * There is no question that an adjournment,​ even for a relatively long period of time, will detrimentally affect ESCO’s prospects of recovering the amount for legal costs awarded by the arbitrator. ​ 
-          * Bradken and the group of companies of which it is a member comprise substantial corporations with income and assets that could easily support a payment of the amount awarded. ​ 
-          * There is no suggestion that Bradken will move assets in order to avoid payment or that improvident trading will erode its financial position. 
-          * ESCO can be adequately protected by requiring Bradken to put up substantial security. 
-          * I think that the concerns of ESCO can be met by an order for substantial security and by the Court closely monitoring the progress of the US litigation. 
-          * (These) factors above lead me to grant the adjournment sought. I shall do so, however, only on condition that substantial security be provided. 
-        * [[http://​​adr-case-law-review/​ESCOvBradken-aug11-FCA.pdf|More information]] 
-  * **[[Uganda Telecom v Hi-Tech Telecom|Uganda Telecom Limited v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd]]** (([2011] FCA 131)) 
-    * An award was made in Uganda pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in a telecommunications contract between a Ugandan corporation and an Australian corporation. ​ 
-    * The arbitrator proceeded ex parte.  ​ 
-    * The Court found that there was no reason not to enforce the award 
-    * [[Uganda Case Arbitration Clause]] 
-  * **Altain Khuder LLC v IMC Mining Inc and IMC Mining Solutions Pty Ltd** 
-    * [[Altain Khuder v IMC Mining|Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal refuses to enforce International arbitration for irregularities]] (([2011] VSCA 248)) 
-      * Warren CJ, p3  
-        * This matter is unusual. It required this Court to decide an issue which is ordinarily uncontroversial in enforcement proceedings. ​ 
-        * The unique circumstances of this case have made a complex investigation into that issue unavoidable. ​ 
-        * However, as I will explain in my reasons, in all but the most unusual cases, applications to enforce foreign arbitral awards should involve only a summary procedure. 
-    * [[Altain Khuder v IMC Mining|Stay pending appeal decision]] ​ (( [2011] VSC 105)) 
-    * [[Altain Khuder v IMC Mining|Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award decision]] (([2011] VSC 1)) (set aside) 
-    * [[Altain Khuder v IMC Mining|Indemnity Costs Decision]] (([2011] VSC 12)) (set aside) ​ 
-    * [[http://​​adr-case-law-review/​IMC-Aviation-SolutionsvAltain-Khuder-LLC-aug11-VSCA.pdf|More information]] ​ 
-===== 2001 ===== 
-  * [[Australian Granites v Eisenwerk Hensel Bayreuth Dipl-Ing Burkhardt|Australian Granites Ltd v Eisenwerk Hensel Bayreuth Dipl-Ing Burkhardt GmbH]](([2001] 1 Qd R 461)) 
-===== 1983 ===== 
-  * [[Resort Condominiums International v Bolwell & anor|Resort Condominiums International Inc v Bolwell & anor]] (((1983) 118 ALR 655)) 
-    * In this case a Court refused to register a US arbitration on the basis that it was an interim order (an injunction),​ however new legislation and new cases make further application of this decision unlikely. 
-    * See the 2011 decisions above 

  © White SW Computer Law 1994-2019. ABN 94 669 684 644. All Rights Reserved.
  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
  This website is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for proper legal advice.
  Readers should make their own enquiries and seek appropriate legal advice.
  For legal advice please email