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
Email:adr@arbitrator.com.au Internet:http://www.arbitrator.com.au

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • rizhao

Sidebar

Technology Arbitrators, Expert Determiners and Mediators

rizhao

Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd

  • Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd1)
    • International Commercial Arbitration - Appeal from application to enforce an award as a judgment - Whether leave to appeal required - Whether primary judge's decision final or interlocutory - Whether appropriate Act the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) or Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (WA) - Where primary judge purported to grant enforcement of award under the State Act - Whether appellant should be permitted to raise new point on appeal challenging jurisdiction of primary judge - Whether in the interests of justice or prejudicial - Whether parties can exclude the Model Law from an international commercial arbitration agreement - Whether there is an inconsistency of laws between the State and Federal Acts
  • Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd
    • Practice and procedure - Suppression order - Factors to be weighed against the principle of open and transparent justice
  • Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd2)
    • Inherent power of the court - Application for stay of application for pre­action discovery - Whether power of court to stay application on conditions - Whether power should be exercised - Leave given in prior proceedings to enforce arbitration award as a judgment of this court - Plaintiff having failed to pay debt without any reason - Evidence that plaintiff has taken steps to avoid enforcement
    • Abuse of process - Whether application for pre-action discovery manifestly groundless - Whether application brought for a purpose or to effect an object beyond that which the legal process offers - Whether if application is found to be abusive the court should exercise any power to order that the application proceed on conditions
  • Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd3)
    • Interim application in Single Judge Appeal - Application for leave to appeal arbitral awards - Security for costs - Application for award amounts to be paid into court before leave application heard
  • Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd No.24)
    • Mareva - Freezing orders - Ancillary orders - Attachment - Cargo in ships - Third parties - Jurisdiction to order - Confidential information - Orders for disclosure of information as to iron ore purchase arrangements with a view to future freezing order relief
  • Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd [No.2] 5)
    • Arbitral awards - Leave to appeal - Error of law needed - Strong evidence - Exclusion agreement - Causation issues - Mitigation of damages - Loss of bargain damages - Opportunity to renegotiate price in better market - Reasonableness - Questions of fact, not law - Error point to be of broader commercial application
  • Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd6)
    • Applications to register two arbitral awards - Enforcement of awards as judgments of court - Pending applications for leave to appeal against only part of substantial arbitral damages awards - Registration appropriate
  • Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd7)
    • Ex parte application for leave to serve out of jurisdiction - Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 10 - Earlier orders made allowing substituted service of notice of originating summons - Substituted service to facsimile number in People's Republic of China - Issue as to validity of service in People's Republic of China - Notice not served under Hague Service Convention through Central Authority - Application to personally serve defendant in United States of America - Where no requirement to serve through a Central Authority
1) [2012] WASCA 5
2) [2011] WASC 207
3) [2011] WASC 1
4) [2010] WASC 386
5) [2010] WASC 385
6) [2010] WASC 384
7) [2010] WASC 335

Page Tools

  © 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 wcl@computerlaw.com.au