Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arbitral Law Reform in Australia: What Are the Signs of Progress to Date?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Arbitration and Dispute Resolution in the Resources Sector

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 43))

  • 1050 Accesses

Abstract

Arbitration is an essential tool for enforcing resources and commodities contracts. Without it Australia’s international trade in resources would be vastly more complex and less efficient. With the revised domestic Commercial Arbitration Acts, and the updated International Arbitration Act, Australia now has a newly enhanced arbitration legislative regime which accords with international best practice. Whether it will actually deliver significant benefits to the resources industry will largely depend on how it is interpreted by the courts. Early signs are promising but there is some way to go yet. Even so, Australia appears to be keeping ahead of some of its neighbours. This chapter briefly surveys and discusses some recent judicial trends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    E.g., Australia is party to a bilateral treaty with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1994, but is not party, for example, to the multi-lateral treaty on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1971.

  2. 2.

    For a current list of contracting states, see http://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states/list-of-contracting-states.

  3. 3.

    Enforcement of international arbitral awards is by no means a perfect system, as will be addressed further below, but by and large it is effective and becoming more so in certain countries.

  4. 4.

    Annan, Kofi, ‘Opening address commemorating the successful conclusion of the 1958 United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration’, Enforcing Arbitration Awards under the New York Convention, Experience and Prospects, Papers presented at “The New York Convention Day”, 10 June 1998, United Nations Publication, New York (1999), 1–3, at 2.

  5. 5.

    It also adopts the ICSID Convention but that Convention is beyond the scope of this discussion.

  6. 6.

    They were in operation throughout Australia at the time of writing with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory.

  7. 7.

    Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates House of Representatives, 25 November 2009, Second Reading speech: International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2009, 12790 (Robert McClelland).

  8. 8.

    American Diagnostica Inc v Gradipore Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 312.

  9. 9.

    Resort Condominiums International Inc v Bolwell (1995) 1 Qd R 406; (1993) ALR 655.

  10. 10.

    Corvetina Technology Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd (2004) NSWSC 700.

  11. 11.

    Eisenwerk v Australian Granites Ltd (2001) 1 Qld R 461.

  12. 12.

    Revised Explanatory Memorandum, International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2010 (Cth), 15.

  13. 13.

    Wagners Nouvelle Caledonie SarlvVale Inco Nouvelle Caledonie SAS (2010) QCA 219.

  14. 14.

    Cargill International SA v Peabody Australia Mining Ltd (2010) NSW SC 887.

  15. 15.

    International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s 21.

  16. 16.

    Explanatory Memorandum, International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2010 (Cth), [112].

  17. 17.

    Note 10, [18].

  18. 18.

    See s 2D, 3 and 39 of the IAA and s 2A and 5 of the CAAs.

  19. 19.

    See Transfield Philippines, Inc. v Luzon Hydro Corporation (G.R. No. 146717, 22 November 2004), where the Court of the Philippines purported to do just that, although Singapore was the seat of the arbitration.

  20. 20.

    International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s 3 defines “foreign award” to mean “an arbitral award made, in pursuance of an arbitration agreement, in a country other than Australia, being an arbitral award in relation to which the New York Convention applies”.

  21. 21.

    IMC Aviation Solutions Pty Ltd v Altain Khuder LLC [2011] VCA 248.

  22. 22.

    By the time of the appeal, IMC Mining Solutions Pty Ltd had changed its name to IMC Aviation Solutions Pty Ltd.

  23. 23.

    Altain Khuder LLC v IMC Mining Inc & Anor [2011] VSC 1.

  24. 24.

    Note 23, [61]–[63].

  25. 25.

    Altain Khuder LLC v IMC Mining Inc & Anor (No 2) [2011] VSC 12.

  26. 26.

    Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2011] 1 AC 763.

  27. 27.

    Uganda Telecom Ltd v High-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 131.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, [126].

  29. 29.

    Ibid, [127].

  30. 30.

    Note 9.

  31. 31.

    Note 10.

  32. 32.

    Note 26, [132].

  33. 33.

    Note 26, [133].

  34. 34.

    Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [2012] FCA 21 (dated 23 January 2012), and Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1214 (dated 2 November 2012).

  35. 35.

    Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [2012] FCA 21.

  36. 36.

    Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1214.

  37. 37.

    Ibid [178].

  38. 38.

    Ibid, [50]. This decision was appealed to the Full Federal Court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the learned judge’s decision. At the time of writing, the Full Federal Court’s reasons for its decision have not been published.

  39. 39.

    TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5.

  40. 40.

    Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd v Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd [2013] FCAFC 109; on appeal from Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd v Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd [2013] FCA 882.

  41. 41.

    Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd v Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd [2013] FCA 882, [103].

  42. 42.

    Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd v Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd [2013] FCAFC 109.

  43. 43.

    Ibid, [64].

  44. 44.

    Ibid, [65].

  45. 45.

    Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 276.

  46. 46.

    Note 45, [90].

  47. 47.

    Note 45, [94].

  48. 48.

    Note 45, [96].

  49. 49.

    Note 45, [105].

  50. 50.

    Note 45, [79]–[86].

  51. 51.

    Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356.

  52. 52.

    Note 51, [23].

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Note 51, [17] and [23].

  55. 55.

    Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Beach Building & Civil Group Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 696.

  56. 56.

    Ibid, [96]–[97].

  57. 57.

    Ibid, [75]; in particular, the approach by Mance LJ in Dallah Real Estate v Ministry of Religious Affairs [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 691.

  58. 58.

    Ibid, [73]–[74].

  59. 59.

    Ibid, [77].

  60. 60.

    Ibid, [76].

  61. 61.

    Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 50.

  62. 62.

    Ibid, [87].

  63. 63.

    Ibid, [66] and [74].

  64. 64.

    Ibid, [110]–[111].

  65. 65.

    Ibid, [133].

  66. 66.

    Cape Lambert Resources Ltd v MCC Australia Sanjin Mining Pty Ltd (2013) WASCA 66.

  67. 67.

    Ibid, 54.

  68. 68.

    Pipeline Services WA Pty Ltd v ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd (2014) WASC 10.

  69. 69.

    ESCO Corporation v Bradken Resources Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 905.

  70. 70.

    ENRC Marketing AG v OJSC “Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Kombinat” (2011) FCA 1371.

  71. 71.

    TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 186.

  72. 72.

    BLB v BLC [2013] SGHC 196.

  73. 73.

    PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV and Others [2013] SGCA 57.

  74. 74.

    TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 186.

  75. 75.

    Ibid, [65].

  76. 76.

    Ibid, [73].

  77. 77.

    Ibid, [104]–[105].

  78. 78.

    Westport Insurance Corporation v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2011) 281 ALR 593; [2011] HCA 37.

  79. 79.

    Note 74, [103].

  80. 80.

    Note 74, [125].

  81. 81.

    Note 74, [2].

  82. 82.

    Note 74, [1].

  83. 83.

    Note 74, [42].

  84. 84.

    Note 74, [125].

  85. 85.

    Note 72.

  86. 86.

    Note 72, [2].

  87. 87.

    Note 72, [35].

  88. 88.

    Note 72, [3].

  89. 89.

    Note 73.

  90. 90.

    The Indonesian proceedings are discussed in more detail below.

  91. 91.

    Note 73, [53]–[55].

  92. 92.

    Note 73, [84].

  93. 93.

    Note 73, [111].

  94. 94.

    Note 73, [132].

  95. 95.

    Note 73, [99].

  96. 96.

    Note 73, [198].

  97. 97.

    Note 73, [188].

  98. 98.

    Note 73, [198].

  99. 99.

    Pacific China Holdings Ltd (in Liquidation) v Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd [2011] HKCU 1249.

  100. 100.

    Pacific China Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation) v Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd [2012] HKCU 971.

  101. 101.

    Pacific China Holdings Ltd (in Liquidation) v Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd [2013] HKCFA 13.

  102. 102.

    Ibid, [5].

  103. 103.

    A v R [2009] 3 HKLRD 389.

  104. 104.

    Gao Haiyan & Anor v Keeneye Holdings Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2012] 1 HKC 491.

  105. 105.

    See section 3 of the Arbitration Act (2005) (Malaysia).

  106. 106.

    The Government of India v Cairn Energy India Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] 3 MLRA 1.

  107. 107.

    Ibid, [18].

  108. 108.

    Ibid, [18]–[19].

  109. 109.

    Ibid, [23], referring to Lombard Commodities v Alami Vegetable Oil Products Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 CLJ 137, which in turn refers to the English case of A v B [2007] 1 Lloyd’s LR 237 in which it was decided that challenges are to be made at the courts of the seat of arbitration.

  110. 110.

    Ibid, [23].

  111. 111.

    Ibid, [30].

  112. 112.

    Ibid, [36].

  113. 113.

    Ibid, [55].

  114. 114.

    Ajwa For Food Industries Co (MIGOP), Egypt v Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd [2013] 2 CLJ 395.

  115. 115.

    Ibid, [13].

  116. 116.

    Ibid, [14]–[15]: “The law regarding the effect of arbitration’s award is well settled in that the award is final, binding and conclusive and can only be challenged in exceptional circumstances. As such if an Arbitrator had erred by drawing wrong inferences of fact from the evidence before him be it oral or documentary that in itself is not sufficient for the setting aside of his award.”: Intelek Timur Sdn Bhd v. Future Heritage [2004] 1 CLJ 743: ‘It would be contrary to all the established legal principles relating to arbitration if an award based upon the evidence presented were liable to be reopened on the suggestion that some of the evidence had been “misapprehended and misunderstood.”’: Sharikat Pemborong Perumahan v. Federal Land Development Authority [1969] 1 LNS 172; [1971] 2 MLJ 210.

  117. 117.

    Ibid, [17].

  118. 118.

    Ajwa For Food Industries Co (Migop), Egypt v Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd [2013] 4 AMR 789 (Full Court).

  119. 119.

    Fifi Junita, ‘The Concept of Public Policy Exception to the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: The Indonesian Perspective’, 2013 International Arbitration Law Review 148, 152.

  120. 120.

    Ibid, 160.

  121. 121.

    Note that the South Jakarta District Court proceedings were commenced prior to the commencement of the SIAC arbitration.

  122. 122.

    Bharat Aluminium Co. v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.

  123. 123.

    Shri Lal Mahal Ltd v Progetto Grano Spa, Civil Appeal No. 5085 of 2013.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King & Spalding, Singapore, Singapore

    Peter Megens & Andrea Stauber

Authors
  1. Peter Megens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Stauber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Megens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin University School of Law, Bentley, West Australia, Australia

    Gabriël A. Moens

  2. Curtin University School of Law, Bentley, West Australia, Australia

    Philip Evans

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Megens, P., Stauber, A. (2015). Arbitral Law Reform in Australia: What Are the Signs of Progress to Date?. In: Moens, G., Evans, P. (eds) Arbitration and Dispute Resolution in the Resources Sector. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 43. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17452-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation