No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
International arbitration is an important area of federal jurisdiction and federal legislative competence, and has attracted significant policy attention in Australia. This paper undertakes a study of pro-arbitration judicial policy in recent arbitration-related Australian case law which touches upon the continuing applicability of the controversial 1999 Eisenwerk decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. Against this pro-arbitration judicial policy context, this paper reviews five Eisenwerk-related cases handed down between 2010 and 2012. It concludes that despite pro-arbitration judicial policy being embedded as a requirement of reasoning in decisions under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), there is mixed evidence of such policy in the cases surveyed. This paper concludes that the extent to which this policy is evidenced largely corresponds with the degree to which contemporary decisions have departed from Eisenwerk.
This article is an adaptation of a paper presented at the ANU College of Law National Graduate Law Conference, Canberra, 18–19 October 2012. The author would like to thank Dr Sonia Allan, Dr Dominique Allen, Dr Jason Taliadoros and Patricia Perlen for their comments on an earlier iteration of this paper. Any errors remain the author's own.
1 Born, Gary, International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer, 2009) 64.Google Scholar
2 Alternative dispute resolution sometimes refers to non-adjudicatory forms of dispute resolution, which excludes arbitration from its scope — see, eg, Sourdin, Tania, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Thomson Reuters, 4th ed, 2012) 2–3 [1.10].Google Scholar On the other hand, it has been remarked that ‘arbitration is the usual method for the resolution of international commercial disputes'— Michael Pryles, ‘The Case for International Arbitration’ [2003] Yearbook of the Australian Mining and Petroleum Law Association 1, 4 (emphasis added).
3 Cf Westport Insurance Corporation v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2011) 244 CLR 239, 261–2 [19]–[20] (French CJ, Gummow, Crennan and Bell JJ) — in the domestic arbitration context.
4 [2001] 1 Qd R 461.
5 Blackaby, Nigel et al, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 5th ed, 2009) 1 [1.01], 31 [1.88].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Lew, Julian, Mistelis, Loukas and Kröll, Stefan, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer, 2003) 5 [1.15].Google Scholar
7 Gaillard, Emmanuel and Savage, John (eds), Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer, 1999) 1.Google Scholar
8 In the 2006 study, 73% of corporate respondents indicated a preference for international arbitration — School of International Arbitration, International Arbitration: Corporate Attitudes and Practices 2006 (2006) 5 [1.2] <http://www.arbitrationonline.org/docs/IAstudy_2006.pdf>. In the 2008 study, 44% of respondents indicated that arbitration was their most-used dispute resolution method as opposed to 41% most commonly using transnational litigation — School of International Arbitration, International Arbitration: Corporate Attitudes and Practices 2008 (2008) 5 [1] <http://www.arbitrationonline.org/docs/IAstudy_2008.pdf>.
9 Newman, Lawrence, ‘Agreements to Arbitrate and the Predictability of Procedures’ (2009) 113 Penn State Law Review 1323, 1323.Google Scholar
10 School of International Arbitration, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration (2010) 5 [1] <http://www.arbitrationonline.org/docs/2010_InternationalArbitrationSurveyReport.pdf>.
11 Ibid 6 [1].
12 Schwenzer, Ingeborg and Kee, Christopher, ‘International Sales Law — The Actual Practice’ (2011) 29 Penn State International Law Review 425, 437.Google Scholar
13 Robert McClelland, ‘International Commercial Arbitration in Australia: More Effective and Certain’ (Speech delivered at the International Commercial Arbitration: Efficient, Effective, Economical? conference, Melbourne, 4 December 2009).
14 Mistelis, Loukas A, ‘Arbitral Seats — Choices and Competition’ in Kröll, Stefan et al (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution (Kluwer, 2011) 363, 379.Google Scholar
15 Garnett, Richard and Nottage, Luke, ‘The 2010 Amendments to the International Arbitration Act: A New Dawn for Australia?’ (2011) 7 Asian International Arbitration Journal 29, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Monichino, Albert, ‘International Arbitration in Australia: The Need to Centralise Judicial Power’ (2012) 86 Australian Law Journal 118, 131.Google Scholar
17 Allsop, Justice James, ‘Foreword’ in Holmes, Malcolm and Brown, Chester, The International Arbitration Act 1974: A Commentary (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011) vii.Google Scholar
18 See, eg, Monichino, Albert, ‘International Arbitration in Australia — 2010 / 2011 in Review’ (2011) 22 Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 215, 215.Google Scholar For examples of such references in the mainstream press, see Rachel Nickless, ‘Rivalries Cost Business', The Australian Financial Review (Sydney), 21 October 2011, 40; Samantha Bowers, ‘Aiming for an A in Arbitration', The Australian Financial Review (Sydney), 12 August 2011, 41.
19 Megens, Peter and Cubitt, Beth, ‘Emerging Trends in Judicial Approach to International Arbitration in Australia: The Winds of Change’ (2011) 77 Arbitration 33, 41 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
20 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, opened for signature 19 June 1958, 330 UNTS 38 (entered into force 7 June 1959).
21 Cf Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan [2011] 1 AC 763, 835–7 [99]–[104] (Lord Collins).
22 CfKerr, Michael, ‘Arbitration and the Courts: The UNCITRAL Model Law’ (1985) 34 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Nottage, Luke and Garnett, Richard, ‘Introduction’ in Nottage, Luke and Garnett, Richard (eds), International Arbitration in Australia (The Federation Press, 2010) 1, 11.Google Scholar
24 Robert McClelland, ‘Australian Government Moves to Modernise International Commercial Arbitration’ (Media Release, 21 November 2008).
25 Attorney-General's Department, Review of the International Arbitration Act 1974 — Discussion Paper (Discussion Paper, 21 November 2008) [4].
26 Australian International Disputes Centre, About Us <http://www.disputescentre.com.au/About-Us>. The AIDC currently houses several Australian arbitration bodies — ACICA, the Australian branch of CIArb, the Australian Maritime and Transport Arbitration Commission, and the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre.
27 International Arbitration Regulations 2011 (Cth) reg 4.
28 See generally R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, affd Attorney-General (Cth) v The Queen (1957) 95 CLR 529. Cf TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia (2013) 295 ALR 596.
29 Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd [No 2] (2011) 277 ALR 441, 443 [12] (Foster J).
30 Keane, Chief Justice Patrick, ‘Judicial Support for Arbitration in Australia’ (2010) 34 Australian Bar Review 1, 5.Google Scholar
31 (2007) 230 CLR 89.
32 Ibid 151–2 [135] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ).
33 International Arbitration Amendment Act 2010 (Cth) s 2. For the specific amending clause — see sch 1 cl 1.
34 A sixth objects paragraph refers to implementation of the ICSID Convention, though this is not relevant to the international commercial arbitration context of this paper — International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s 2D(f).
35 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted 11 December 1985, as amended by Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the Work of its Thirty-Ninth Session, UN GAOR, 61st sess, Supp No 17, UN Doc A/61/17 (19 June – 7 July 2006) annex I 56–60.
36 International Arbitration Amendment Act 2010 (Cth) sch 1 cl 26.
37 International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s 39(2)(a). See also ESCO Corporation v Bradken Resources Pty Ltd (2011) 282 ALR 282, 294 [64].
38 International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s 39(1)(a)(i)–(iv).
39 Ibid s 39(1)(a)(v).
40 Ibid s 39(1)(a)(vi)–(vii).
41 Ibid s 39(1)(b).
42 Ibid s 39(1)(c).
43 Ibid s 39(2)(b).
44 Ibid s 39(2)(b)(i).
45 Ibid s 39(2)(b)(ii).
46 (2011) 277 ALR 415.
47 Ibid 436 [126].
48 The analysis which follows is based on the High Court's decision in Applicant A which is, by its terms, a decision relevant to international treaties. However it is not entirely irrelevant in this regard to note that the Model Law is given effect by the IAA and has a close interrelationship with the New York Convention — see Resolution Approving the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law – UNCITRAL, GA Res 72, UN GAOR, 40th sess, 112th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/40/72 (11 December 1985) [4]; Revised Articles of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and the Recommendation Regarding the Interpretation of Article II, Paragraph 2, and Article VII, Paragraph I, of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Done at New York, 10 June 1985, GA Res 33, UN GAOR, 61st sess, 64th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/61/33 (4 December 2006) Preamble para 6; Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 45, 94–6 [192]–[193] (Allsop J). See also International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s 17(1).
49 New York Convention art II. Pursuant to art II(1) of the New York Convention, the courts of Contracting States are required to recognise arbitration agreements and pursuant to art II(3) of the New York Convention they must (at the request of a party) refer matters within the scope of valid arbitration agreements back to arbitration.
50 Ibid arts III–IV. Article III of the New York Convention requires the courts of Contracting States to recognise international arbitration awards as binding and enforce them; art IV concerns evidentiary requirements for enforcement; and arts V–VI concern the grounds on which recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be denied or adjourned.
51 Wetter, J Gillis, ‘The Present Status of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC: An Appraisal’ (1990) 1 American Review of International Arbitration 91, 93.Google Scholar
52 Mustill, Lord Michael, ‘Arbitration: History and Background’ (1989) 6(2) Journal of International Arbitration 43, 49.Google Scholar
53 UNCITRAL, Status: 1958 — Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html>.
54 Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (2011) 277 ALR 415, 421 [21] (Foster J). See also ESCO Corporation v Bradken Resources Pty Ltd (2011) 282 ALR 282, 295 [73] (Foster J).
55 International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s 16(1).
56 (1997) 190 CLR 225.
57 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980). See, eg, International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ed), ICCA's Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention (ICCA, 2011) 12–16.Google Scholar
58 Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225, 230–1 (Brennan CJ), 239–40 (Dawson J), 251–3 (McHugh J), 277 (Gummow J), 292, 294–5 (Kirby J).
59 Brennan CJ was in the minority, however all five justices agreed on the interpretative principle relevant here.
60 Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225, 230–1.
61 International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ed), above n 57, 14–15.
62 Paulsson, Jan, ‘The Case for Disregarding LSAS (Local Standard Annulments) Under the New York Convention’ (1996) 7 American Review of International Arbitration 99, 104.Google Scholar
63 (2011) 277 ALR 441.
64 Ibid 443 [12].
65 See, eg, International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ed), above n 57, 15.
66 See, eg, Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [No 2] [2012] FCA 1214 (2 November 2012) [30], [34], [39], [50], [55], [183] (Murphy J); Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd [No 2] (2012) 201 FCR 535, 555 [90] (Foster J); ESCO Corporation v Bradken Resources Pty Ltd (2011) 282 ALR 282, 298 [85] (Foster J).
67 See, eg, Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Societe Generale de L'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F 2d 969, 973 (2nd Cir, 1974). See also Kahara Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F 3d 274, 306 (5th Cir, 2004) (citing the Parsons decision) and the recent Australian case of Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (2011) 277 ALR 415, 436 [129] (Foster J) (citing Kahara Bodas). Cf Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan [2011] 1 AC 763, 836 [101] (Lord Collins) — referring to ‘a “pro-enforcement” policy’ under the New York Convention.
68 508 F 2d 969 (2nd Cir, 1974).
69 Ibid 973. See also Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd [No 2] (2011) 277 ALR 441, 443 [12] (Foster J).
70 See, eg, International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ed), above n 57, 14–15. See also Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [No 2] [2012] FCA 1214 (2 November 2012) [55], [183] (Murphy J).
71 See, eg, Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [No 2] [2012] FCA 1214 (2 November 2012) [50] (Murphy J); Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd [No 2] (2012) 201 FCR 535, 555 [90] (Foster J); Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (2011) 277 ALR 415, 439 [132] (Foster J); Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Societe Generale de L'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F 2d 969, 973 (2nd Cir, 1974).
72 ESCO Corporation v Bradken Resources Pty Ltd (2011) 282 ALR 282, 292 [53] (Foster J) — in the context of the New York Convention's implementation in Australia through the IAA.
73 In the criminal law context, a ‘lesser included’ offence is ‘[a] crime that is composed of some, but not all, of the elements of a more serious crime and … is necessarily committed in carrying out the greater crime’ — Garner, Bryan (ed), Black's Law Dictionary (West, 9th ed, 2009) 1187.Google Scholar
74 Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225, 294 (Kirby J).
75 See, eg, the comments of Justice Steven Rares quoted in Stephanie Quine, Mediation Orders Could Limit Access to Justice (14 June 2012) Lawyers Weekly <http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/mediation-orders-could-limit-access-to-justice>.
76 Both Courts are within the exhaustive definition of ‘eligible court’ under the Act — Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth) s 5.
77 Ibid ss 6, 7 (with respect to applicants and respondents, respectively).
78 Ibid ss 6(2)(a)–(b) (with respect to applicants). Respondents’ statements must either indicate agreement with the applicants’ statement or ‘the respect in which, and reasons why, the respondent disagrees’ — ibid s 7(2).
79 Explanatory Memorandum, Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010 (Cth) 2.
80 Ibid 6 [12]. See also Hobbs, Harry Orr, ‘The Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth) and the Meaning of “Genuine Steps“: Formalising the Common Law Requirement of “Good Faith“’ (2012) 23 Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 249, 251.Google Scholar
81 Quine, above n 75.
82 See, eg, the famous remarks of Scrutton LJ that ‘[t]here must be no Alsatia in England where the King's writ does not run’ — Czarnikow v Roth, Schmidt and Company [1922] 2 KB 478, 488.
83 The Supreme Court of Victoria, for example, ‘sees itself as a … real partner with the providers of … ADR services’ — Chief Justice Marilyn Warren, ‘Remarks at the International Commercial Arbitration Conference — The Victorian Supreme Court's Perspective on Arbitration’ (Speech delivered at the International Commercial Arbitration: Efficient, Effective, Economical? conference, Melbourne, 4 December 2009) <http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/resources/54c95bcf-0886-4df2-882c-f4d5fc679eaa/remarks+at+the+icac_4.12.09.pdf>.
84 Cooke, Lord has referred to the ‘gratitude’ of courts towards arbitration in the face of ‘the pressures of judicial workloads’ — Lord Robin Cooke, ‘Party Autonomy’ (1999) 30 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 257, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Similarly, Lalive refers to ‘a kind of “division of labor” between States … and private international arbitration’ — Pierre Lalive, ‘Arbitration — The Civilized Solution’ (1998) 16 ASA Bulletin 483, 484.Google Scholar Cf Westport Insurance Corporation v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2011) 244 CLR 239, 288 [111] (Heydon J) — in the context of domestic commercial arbitration.
85 See, eg, Chief Justice Marilyn Warren, ‘Australia as a “Safe and Neutral” Arbitration Seat’ (Speech delivered at the ACICA ‘The Australian Option’ Chinese tour, Shanghai and Beijing, 6–7 June 2012) <http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/resources/f532d1a7-b20c-499d-9b5d-8d2d07b03cb7/nternational+arbitration.pdf>; Warren, ‘Conference Remarks', above n 83; Justice Clyde Croft, ‘Commercial Arbitration in Australia: The Past, the Present and the Future’ (Paper presented at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London, 25 May 2011) <http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/resources/28b9b282-7aa9-492f-a1b6-cbc3745993a2/chartered_institute_paper-justice_croft.pdf>; Justice Clyde Croft, ‘The Supreme Court of Victoria's Arbitration List and its Role Within Australia's Arbitration Framework’ (Paper presented at the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris, 23 May 2011) <http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/resources/61880020-39a2-4fd3-a69f-b12273890a7d/icc_aal_paper-justice_croft.pdf>; Justice Clyde Croft, ‘The Development of Australia as an Arbitral Seat — A Victorian Supreme Court Perspective’ (Paper presented at the ICCA 50th Anniversary Conference, Geneva, 19–20 May 2011) <http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/resources/c544391d-f623-4d8f-86b9-333aa2af3186/icca_paper-justice_croft-270411.pdf>.
86 See, eg, Chief Justice Patrick Keane, ‘The Prospects for International Arbitration in Australia’ (Speech delivered at the 6th Annual AMTAC Address, Brisbane, 25 September 2012) <http://www.amtac.org.au/assets/media/AMAMTACAddressKeaneCJ25September-2012.pdf>.
87 Monichino, ‘The Need to Centralise', above n 16, 127.
88 Supreme Court of Victoria, Practice Note No 2 of 2010 — Arbitration Business, 17 December 2009, 7 [16] <http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/resources/4e194d3d-c8a0-4944-966a-452a420daa87/no._2_of_2010_-_arbitration_business.pdf>.
89 Megens and Cubitt, ‘Emerging Trends', above n 19, 42 (emphasis added).
90 Croft, ‘The Development of Australia as an Arbitral Seat', above n 85, 13–14.
91 Megens, Peter and Cubitt, Beth, ‘Arbitrators’ Perspective: The Evolving Face of International Arbitration — The Past, the Present and the Future’ (2010) 13 International Arbitration Law Review 1, 5Google Scholar; Megens and Cubitt, ‘Emerging Trends', above n 19, 33–4.
92 See generally Ayres, Ian and Gertner, Robert, ‘Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules’ (1989–1990) 99 Yale Law Journal 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93 [2001] 2 SLR 262. See International Arbitration Act (Singapore, cap 143A, 2002 rev ed) s 15(2).
94 School of International Arbitration, Corporate Attitudes 2006, above n 8, 6 [2.2].
95 School of International Arbitration, Corporate Attitudes 2008, above n 8, 5.
96 Blackaby et al, above n 5, 185–6 [3.63]–[3.66]. See also Naviera Amazonica Peruana SA v Compania Internacional de Seguros del Peru [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep 116, 120 (Kerr LJ) — quoted at 186 [3.66].
97 International Arbitration Act (Singapore, cap 143A, 2002 rev ed) s 15.
98 Keane, ‘Arbitration Prospects', above n 86.
99 Megens and Cubitt, ‘Arbitrators’ Perspective', above n 91, 5; Megens, Peter and Cubitt, Beth, ‘Meeting Disputants’ Needs in the Current Climate: What Has Gone Wrong With Arbitration and How Can We Repair It?’ (2009) 28 The Arbitrator and Mediator 115, 129–30.Google Scholar
100 Australian Granites Ltd v Eisenwerk Hensel Bayreuth Dipl-Ing Burkhardt GmbH [2001] 1 Qd R 461, 466 [12] (Pincus JA).
101 The current (2012) version of the ICC Arbitration Rules is available online at International Chamber of Commerce, ICC Rules of Arbitration in Several Languages (2012) ICC — The World Business Organization <http://www.iccwbo.org/Products-and-Services/Arbitration-and-ADR/Arbitration/Rules-of-arbitration/Download-ICC-Rules-of-Arbitration/ICC-Rules-of-Arbitration-in-several-languages/>.
102 This constitutional point was discussed in Cargill International SA v Peabody Australia Mining Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 533, 537–8 [12] (Ward J), and the ‘substitution’ of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Qld) for the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) was referred to (albeit without explanation as to its constitutional basis) in Wagners Nouvelle Caledonie Sarl v Vale Inco Nouvelle Caledonie SAS [2010] QCA 219 (20 August 2010) [32] (Muir JA). See generally American Diagnostica Inc v Gradipore Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 312, 322–9 (Giles CJ).
103 See, eg, Nottage, Luke and Garnett, Richard, ‘Top 20 Things to Change in or Around Australia's International Arbitration Act’ (2010) 6 Asian International Arbitration Journal 1, 26Google Scholar; Barrett-White, Stephen and Kee, Christopher, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Where the Seat of the Arbitration is Australia — How the Eisenwerk Decision Might Still be a Sleeping Assassin’ (2007) 24 Journal of International Arbitration 515, 523–7Google Scholar; Rudge, Nick and Miles, Cameron, ‘More Than an Empty Gesture: The Reversal of Eisenwerk’ (2011) 77 Arbitration 43, 43Google Scholar; Smith, Gordon and Cook, Andrew, ‘International Commercial Arbitration in Asia-Pacific: A Comparison of the Australian and Singapore Systems’ (2011) 77 Arbitration 108, 113Google Scholar; Megens and Cubitt, ‘Arbitrators’ Perspective', above n 91, 5; Megens and Cubitt, ‘Meeting Disputants’ Needs', above n 99, 129–30.
104 Rudge and Miles, above n 103, 43.
105 See, eg, Gehle, Björn, ‘The Arbitration Rules of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration’ (2009) 13 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 251, 256Google Scholar; Justice Clyde Croft and David Fairlie, ‘International Commercial Arbitration — The New Framework for International Commercial Arbitration in Australia’ (Paper presented at the International Commercial Arbitration: Efficient, Effective, Economical? conference, Melbourne, 4 December 2009) 6.
106 (2010) 78 NSWLR 533.
107 [2010] QCA 219.
108 (2011) 250 FLR 63.
109 (2012) 201 FCR 209.
110 (2012) 43 WAR 91.
111 Cargill International SA v Peabody Australia Mining Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 533, 535–6 [1], 547 [39].
112 Ibid 537 [8]–[10].
113 Ibid 537 [8].
114 See her Honour's summary of the decision at ibid 542 [31].
115 Ibid 545 [31]. Ward J also found that the CAA claim would have been rejected in any event — ibid 542–6 [31].
116 Ibid 549 [45].
117 Ibid 555–8 [68]–[77].
118 Ibid 560–1 [84]–[91].
119 See especially Model Law arts 19(1), 2(e).
120 Cargill International SA v Peabody Australia Mining Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 533, 560 [83].
121 Ibid 558–560 [80]–[83].
122 McClelland, ‘More Effective and Certain', above n 13.
123 Monichino, ‘2010 / 2011 Review', above n 18, 219.
124 Skinner, Matt and Simpkins, Justin, ‘Enforcement of Foreign Awards in Australia’ (2011) 77 Arbitration 54, 57.Google Scholar See also Megens and Cubitt, ‘Emerging Trends', above n 19, 40 — suggesting that New South Wales can be characterised as ‘a [S]tate which has a progressive approach to arbitration'.
125 The 1976 version of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules are available online at UNCITRAL, International Commercial Arbitration & Conciliation (2012) <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration.html>. The current version of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, effective 15 August 2010, is also available from this site.
126 Wagners Nouvelle Caledonie Sarl v Vale Inco Nouvelle Caledonie SAS [2010] QCA 219 (20 August 2010) [1] (McMurdo P).
127 Ibid [4] (Muir JA) (see paragraph [17] of the case stated).
128 Ibid [42] (Muir JA).
129 Ibid.
130 Ibid [43] (Muir JA).
131 Ibid [31].
132 Ibid.
133 [1970] 1 Ch 345.
134 Ibid 402.
135 Megens and Cubitt, ‘Emerging Trends', above n 19, 38.
136 Ibid 41. See also Monichino, ‘2010 / 2011 Review', above n 18, 220.
137 Rudge and Miles, above n 103, 43.
138 Ibid 51.
139 Ibid 53.
140 Ibid.
141 Ibid.
142 Smith and Cook, above n 103, 113.
143 Lightsource Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Pointsec Mobile Technologies AB (2011) 250 FLR 63, 66 [1]-[2].
144 Ibid 66 [3].
145 Ibid 67-8 [12].
146 Ibid 66-7 [4].
147 Ibid 67 [4]. The SCC Expedited Rules are available on-line at Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Rules <http://www.sccinstitute.com/skiljeforfarande-2/regler-4.aspx>.
148 Lightsource Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Pointsec Mobile Technologies AB (2011) 250 FLR 63, 67 [4].
149 Ibid 68 [16]. See also 69 [30].
150 Ibid 68 [16]. See also 69 [30].
151 Ibid 79 [93].
152 Ibid 91 [173]. Naturally, the relevance of each in a given case will depend on the instruments at issue. Article 8 of the Model Law, as given effect by IAA s 16(1), applies to international commercial arbitrations seated anywhere in the world that satisfy the ‘international’ and ‘commercial’ tests of art 1 of the Model Law. IAA s 7, implementing art II(3) of the New York Convention, applies only to arbitration agreements to which the New York Convention applies. Both had relevance in Lightsource but this will not invariably be the case.
153 Lightsource Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Pointsec Mobile Technologies AB (2011) 250 FLR 63, 89–90 [159]-[160], 91 [168]–[169].
154 Ibid 91 [168]–[169].
155 Ibid 92 [177].
156 Ibid 92 [175].
157 Ibid.
158 Ibid 92 [178].
159 Ibid 92 [179].
160 Ibid.
161 See, generally, the comments of Justice Clyde Croft in a recent case note concerning Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd [No 2] (2012) 201 FCR 535, that the case ‘is important because of the analysis of and emphasis on the purpose of the IAA provisions as being directed to the application and implementation of the New York Convention and its pro-enforcement provisions in Australia’ — Croft, Justice Clyde, ‘Enforcing Foreign Arbitration Awards — Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd [No 2] (2012) 201 FCR 535’ (2012) 86 Australian Law Journal 744, 747.Google Scholar
162 International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s 2D(b).
163 Ibid s 2D(e).
164 The fact that nearly three years elapsed between Lightsource's application and the Court's decision has not escaped criticism — see Monichino, ‘2010 / 2011 Review', above n 18, 224.
165 Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle, ‘Globalization of Arbitral Procedure’ (2003) 36 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1313, 1315–1317.Google Scholar
166 Waincymer, Jeffrey, Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration (Kluwer, 2012) 170Google Scholar; Blackaby et al, above n 5, 180 [3.51]. As the House of Lords has explained, ‘[t]he parties have chosen their forum; they must take its rules unless, as far as is lawfully possible, they expressly exclude them’ — SA Coppée Lavalin NV v Ken-Ren Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (in liq) [1995] 1 AC 38, 66 (Lord Slynn).
167 Model Law art 1(2).
168 Ibid.
169 Similarly, Garnett and Nottage argue that the old IAA s 21 is only relevant to Australian seated arbitrations — Garnett, Richard and Nottage, Luke, ‘What Law (If Any) Now Applies to International Commercial Arbitration in Australia?’ (2012) 35 University of New South Wales Law Journal 953, 963.Google Scholar
170 International Arbitration Amendment Act 2010 (Cth) sch 1 cl 16.
171 See the issues and problems with respect to the old IAA s 21 discussed in the Revised Explanatory Memorandum, International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2010 (Cth) 15–16 [112].
172 See the discussion of Eisenwerk in the Revised Explanatory Memorandum, International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2010 (Cth) 16 [113].
173 Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 (ACT); Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW); Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (NT); Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Qld); Commercial Arbitration and Industrial Referral Agreements Act 1986 (SA); Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 (Tas); Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (Vic); Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (WA). Under the new Uniform Commercial Arbitration Act regime being progressively enacted across the Australian jurisdictions, international commercial arbitration is carved out and thus no s 109 inconsistency strictly arises — Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (SA) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Tas) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c).
174 International Arbitration Amendment Act 2010 (Cth) ss 2(1), (3).
175 Monichino, Albert and Fawke, Alex, ‘International Arbitration in Australia: 2011 / 2012 in Review’ (2012) 23 Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 234, 235.Google Scholar This was expressly recognised by the Western Australian Court of Appeal — Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd (2012) 43 WAR 91, 123-4 [146] (Martin CJ). Cf ibid s 2(1). Specifically, there is no application rule in sch 1 pt 2 for the IAA s 21 amendment contained in sch 1 pt 1 cl 16 — see Garnett and Nottage, ‘What Law', above n 169, 957.
176 See, eg, Hayward, Benjamin, ‘Eisenwerk Reconsidered (Twice) — A Case Note on Cargill International SA v Peabody Australia Mining Ltd, and Wagners Nouvelle Caledonie SARL v Vale Inco Nouvelle Caledonie SAS’ (2010) 15 Deakin Law Review 223, 242–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garnett, Richard and Nottage, Luke, ‘The 2010 Amendments to the International Arbitration Act: A New Dawn for Australia?’ (2011) 7 Asian International Arbitration Journal 29, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
177 Parliament of Australia, International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2010 <http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4261>.
178 Garnett and Nottage, ‘What Law', above n 169, 969-70. See also Monichino and Fawke, above n 175, 235-6.
179 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) sch 1 cl 2(1)(a); Commercial Arbitration (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) s 43(1)(a); Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) s 42(1)(a); Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (SA) sch 1 cl 8(1)(a); Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Tas) sch 1 cl 2(1)(a); Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic) s 43(1)(a); Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) s 43(1)(a).
180 Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (SA) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Tas) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c); Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) ss 1(1), 1(3)(c).
181 This observation is repeatedly borne out in the annual Statistical Reports published in the ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin (though the ICC has not published data concerning the years that ICC dispute contracts were formed since 2007). See especially International Chamber of Commerce, ‘2000 Statistical Report’ (2001) 12(1) ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin 5, 10Google Scholar — noting that an ICC arbitration filed in 2000 related to a contract formed more than 50 years earlier in 1947.
182 Murphy J's judgment uses the term ‘non-foreign award’ to describe an international commercial arbitration award handed down in an Australian seated arbitration, as opposed to a ‘domestic award’ which is more apt to describe an award in a purely domestic arbitration involving only Australian parties — Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Company Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 209, 212 [14].
183 Ibid 221 [57].
184 Ibid 221 [59]. See also Monichino and Fawke, above n 175, 241.
185 Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [No 2] [2012] FCA 1214 (2 November 2012).
186 Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [No 3] [2012] FCA 1282 (19 November 2012).
187 TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia (2013) 295 ALR 596. For the transcript of the High Court hearing see Transcript of Proceedings, TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2012] HCATrans 277 (6 November 2012). See also Monichino and Fawke, above n 175, 247–248.
188 Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Company Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 209, 222–5 [65]–[81].
189 Ibid 222 [65].
190 See generally Pearce, DC and Geddes, RS, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 7th ed, 2011) 322–345 [10.1]–[10.36].Google Scholar
191 Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Company Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 209, 222 [66].
192 Pearce and Geddes, above n 190, 322 [10.1].
193 (1957) 96 CLR 261, 270 (citation omitted).
194 Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Company Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 209, 223 [71].
195 Ibid.
196 Ibid.
197 Ibid 223 [73].
198 Ibid 223–4 [74].
199 Ibid.
200 Explanatory Memorandum, International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2009 (Cth). See ibid 224 [76].
201 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 25 November 2009, 12790–12792 (Robert McClelland, Attorney-General). See Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Company Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 209, 224 [77].
202 Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Company Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 209, 225 [81].
203 Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd (2012) 43 WAR 91, 95 [1] (Martin CJ).
204 Ibid [2] (Martin CJ).
205 Ibid 96 [6] (Martin CJ).
206 Monichino and Fawke, above n 175, 242.
207 Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd (2012) 43 WAR 91, 96 [7] (Martin CJ).
208 Ibid 110–11 [87] (Martin CJ). See also 125 [153] (Buss JA, agreeing), 125 [154] (Murphy JA, agreeing on this point).
209 Ibid 113-14 [99]–[103].
210 Monichino and Fawke, above n 175, 243. See ibid 122 [139] (Martin CJ), 125 [153] (Buss JA, agreeing with Martin CJ), 135 [206] (Murphy JA).
211 Monichino and Fawke, above n 175, 243.
212 Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd (2012) 43 WAR 91, 125 [153].
213 See ibid 122 [139]. See also ibid 120-1 [132]–[133].
214 Monichino and Fawke, above n 175, 242.
215 Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd (2012) 43 WAR 91, 135-6 [207].
216 (1957) 96 CLR 261.
217 Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd (2012) 43 WAR 91, 119 [126].
218 Ibid 119-20 [128]. See also ibid 120 [131].
219 Ibid 120-1 [132]–[133].
220 Ibid 122 [137].
221 Ibid 125 [155].
222 Ibid 135-6 [207].
223 Ibid 123 [141].
224 Ibid [144].
225 Monichino and Fawke, above n 175, 243.
226 Cargill International SA v Peabody Australia Mining Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 533, 561 [91].
227 Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd (2012) 43 WAR 91, 122 [140] (Martin CJ).
228 Warren, ‘Conference Remarks', above n 83, 5.
229 (2007) 230 CLR 89, 151–2 [135] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ).
230 Nottage, Luke, ‘Afterthoughts: International Commercial Contracts and Arbitration’ (2010) 17 Australian International Law Journal 197, 202–3.Google Scholar
231 Megens and Cubitt, ‘Emerging Trends', above n 19, 41.
232 Jones, Doug, ‘International Arbitration: Navigating the Arbitral Institutions and Venues’ (2010) 23 International Law Practicum 116, 117.Google Scholar
233 International Chamber of Commerce, ‘2012 Statistical Report’ (2013) 24(1) ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin 5, 14.Google Scholar
234 Born, above n 1, 156.
235 Jones, above n 232, 117.
236 Ibid 122.
237 Warren, ‘Conference Remarks', above n 83, 5.
238 TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia (2013) 295 ALR 596.
239 Altain Khuder LLC v IMC Mining Inc (2011) 276 ALR 733.
240 IMC Aviation Solutions Pty Ltd v Altain Khuder LLC (2011) 282 ALR 717.
241 Altain Khuder LLC v IMC Mining Inc [2011] VSC 12 (3 February 2011). For the discussion of costs on appeal see IMC Aviation Solutions Pty Ltd v Altain Khuder LLC (2011) 282 ALR 717, 732–3 [54]–[58] (Warren CJ), 801–804 [323]–[342] (Hansen JA and Kyrou AJA).
242 See, eg, Lightsource Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Pointsec Mobile Technologies AB (2011) 250 FLR 63, 79–91 [92]–[171] (Refshauge J).
243 Gordian Runoff Ltd v Westport Insurance Corporation (2010) 267 ALR 74.
244 Westport Insurance Corporation v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2011) 244 CLR 239.
245 See, eg, Kantaria, Saloni, ‘Australia Amends its International Arbitration Act — Do the Amendments Facilitate Enforcement and Recognition of the Award?’ (2011) 15 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 341.Google Scholar