Abstract
The legal regime for arbitration in Australia has undergone dramatic changes in the past five years. International arbitration matters are now governed exclusively by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (at least for arbitration agreements entered into on or after 6 July 2010) and domestic arbitration is regulated by new uniform State and Territory legislation (except in the ACT). This paper examines key aspects of the Commonwealth legislation including the enforcement of arbitral agreements and awards under the New York Convention, the scope and application of the UNCITRAL Model Law in Australia (including the status of pre-6 July 2010 agreements) and the amendments introduced in 2010. The paper concludes with a discussion of the new principles applying to domestic arbitration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
IAA s 7(2).
- 2.
IAA s 7(1).
- 3.
IAA s 3(1), Convention art II(1).
- 4.
IAA s 3(4).
- 5.
See, e.g. Global Partners Fund Limited v Babcock & Brown Limited (in liq) and Ors [2010] NSWCA 196.
- 6.
IAA s 7(2).
- 7.
Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160; Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 45; Nicola v Ideal Image Development Corporation Inc [2009] FCA 1177; Casaceli v Natuzzi SpA (2012) 292 ALR 143 (also franchising claims).
- 8.
Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler-Chrysler-Plymouth Inc, 473 US 614 (1985); Casaceli v Natuzzi SpA (2012) 292 ALR 143 (exclusive dealing), but compare Nicola v Ideal Image Development Corporation Inc [2009] FCA 1177 [56].
- 9.
An exception would be where an issue as to the validity or grant of a registered right such as a patent or trademark is involved: N. Blackaby, C. Partasides, A. Redfern and M. Hunter, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (OUP 5th ed 2009) 125. In Larkden Pty Ltd v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Ltd (2011) 279 ALR 772 a dispute concerning the rights and obligations of parties to a contractual licence of a patent was held to be arbitrable.
- 10.
ACD Tridon Inc v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 896 [192] (an application to wind up a company is likely not to be arbitrable because of its impact on third party creditors); Parharpur Cooling Towers Ltd v Paramount (WA) Ltd [2008] WASCA 110. In AED Oil Ltd v Puffin FPSO Ltd (No. 2) [2009] VSC 534 the status of taxation claims was left open.
- 11.
For an earlier study of this problem, see R. Garnett, ‘The Current Status of International Arbitration Agreements in Australia’ (1999) 15 Journal of Contract Law 29.
- 12.
(2006) 157 FCR 45.
- 13.
Note the following recent cases where a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration was ordered: WesTrac Pty Ltd v Eastcoast OTR Tyres Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 894; Nicola v Ideal Image Development Corporation Inc [2009] FCA 1177; Casaceli v Natuzzi SpA (2012) 292 ALR 143; Cape Lambert Resources Pty Ltd v MCC Australia Sanjin Mining Pty Ltd [2013] WSACA 66.
- 14.
Fiona Trust Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] 4 All ER 951 (UKHL).
- 15.
Rinehart v Welker [2012] NSWCA 95.
- 16.
Two examples of cases where foreign law was relied upon were Recyclers of Australia Pty Ltd v Hettinga Equipment Inc (2000) 100 FCR 420 and Casaceli v Natuzzi SpA (2012) 292 ALR 143.
- 17.
Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 45 [241].
- 18.
Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Beach Building & Civil Group Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 107; Jebsens International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Interfert Australia Pty Ltd (2011) 112 SASR 297.
- 19.
Ferris v Plaister (1994) 34 NSWLR 474; Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 45 [229].
- 20.
Zhang v Shanghai Wool and Jute Textile Co Ltd (2006) 201 FLR 178; Australian Granites Ltd v Eisenwerk [2001] 1 Qd R 461; ACD Tridon Inc v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 896 [69].
- 21.
IAA ss 3(3), 8(1), (4).
- 22.
ML Ubase Holdings Co Ltd v Trigem Computer Inc [2005] NSWSC 224.
- 23.
Such an argument was recently rejected in Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd v Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd [2013] FCAFC 109. Further, in TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd (2014) 311 ALR 387, it was stated that this defence will not be available unless there is demonstrated ‘real unfairness’ or ‘real practical injustice’ in how the dispute resolution was conducted.
- 24.
The defences are set out in IAA ss 8(5) and (7).
- 25.
An error of law objection also cannot be framed as a violation of public policy: Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (2011) 277 ALR 415 [133].
- 26.
IAA s 8(3A).
- 27.
Soleimany v Soleimany [1999] QB 785.
- 28.
Resort Condominiums International v Bolwell (1993) 118 ALR 655.
- 29.
Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [2012] FCA 1214 [33], [177]; Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (2011) 277 ALR 415 [132]; Traxys Europe SA v Balaji C Industry Pvt Ltd (No. 2) (2012) 201 FCR 535 [96].
- 30.
Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [2012] FCA 1214 [34].
- 31.
IAA s 8(8) implementing Convention art VI; Toyo Engineering Corp v John Holland Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 553; ESCO Corporation v Bradken Resources Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 905.
- 32.
IAA s 8(9), (10).
- 33.
Model Law, art 18, IAA s 18C.
- 34.
Model Law, art 24(3).
- 35.
Model Law art 12(2).
- 36.
IAA s 18A.
- 37.
Model Law art 12(2).
- 38.
Model Law art 14(1).
- 39.
Model Law art 16(3); teleMates (previously Better Telecom) Pty Ltd v Standard SoftTel Solutions Pvt Ltd (2011) 257 FLR 75.
- 40.
Model Law art 34.
- 41.
Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones v STET International (1999) 45 OR (3d) 183.
- 42.
Model Law art 8.
- 43.
Model Law arts 35–36.
- 44.
Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [2012] FCA 21.
- 45.
Model Law art 17.
- 46.
Model Law art 17J; ENRC Metallurgical Marketing AG v OJSC ‘Magnitogorsk Kombinat’ (2011) 285 ALR 444.
- 47.
Model Law arts 17B, 17C.
- 48.
For a criticism of this view see L. Nottage and R. Garnett, ‘Introduction’ in L. Nottage and R. Garnett (eds), International Arbitration in Australia (Federation Press 2010) 1, 23.
- 49.
2001 BCTC 664.
- 50.
[2012] FCA 21.
- 51.
(2012) 287 ALR 315.
- 52.
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock [2013] WASC 290.
- 53.
For a detailed discussion, see R. Garnett and L. Nottage, ‘What Law (If Any) Now Applies to International Commercial Arbitration in Australia?’ (2012) 35 University of New South Wales Law Journal 953, 969–971 cited in Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock [2013] WASC 290 [219] n 98.
- 54.
IAA s 24.
- 55.
IAA ss 25–27.
- 56.
IAA s 28.
- 57.
IAA s 29.
- 58.
(1995) 183 CLR 10.
- 59.
IAA ss 22(3), 23C.
- 60.
IAA s 23G(1)(a).
- 61.
CAA s 7.
- 62.
CAA s 8.
- 63.
CAA ss 18–24, 25–27.
- 64.
CAA ss 11–12.
- 65.
CAA (1984) s 44.
- 66.
CAA s 34.
- 67.
Sections 27E, 27F.
- 68.
Section 27D.
- 69.
The Hon M Gleeson AC QC, ‘Some Practical Aspects of International Arbitration’ in N Perram (ed), International Commercial Law and Arbitration: Perspectives (Ross Parsons Centre of Commercial, Corporate and Taxation Law 2014) 297, 299.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Garnett, R. (2015). Australia’s International and Domestic Arbitration Framework. 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_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17452-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17451-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17452-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)