Arbitration in Australasia

Arbitration in Australia

Arbitration—Australia—Q&A guide

This Practice Note contains a jurisdiction-specific Q&A guide to arbitration in Australia published as part of the Lexology Panoramic by Law Business Research (published: July 2022). See Practice Note: Arbitration—Australia—Q&A guide.

Arbitration in Australia—an introduction to the International Arbitration Act 1974

This Practice Note discuss the Australian International Arbitration Act 1974 (IAA 1974), highlighting some of its key provisions and its relationship with other arbitral regimes such as the UNCITRAL Model Law. The note covers the objects of IAA 1974, the position on the arbitration agreement, separability and competence, opt-in and opt-out provisions, arbitrators, mandatory rules, court assistance, confidentiality, awards, challenge of awards, and representation in proceedings. The Practice Note also covers jurisprudence relating to the constitutionality of IAA 1974. See Practice Note: Arbitration in Australia—an introduction to the International Arbitration Act 1974.

Arbitration in Australia—recognition and enforcement of foreign awards

This Practice Note sets out how foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in Australia. It covers the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the legislative scheme and objects of the International Arbitration Act 1974 and the issue of public

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

French courts re-affirmed how the irreconcilability between an arbitral award and a foreign judgment may amount to a breach of international public policy (SNEL v Congo and FG Hemisphere)

Arbitration analysis: On 16 September 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal (the Court) dismissed Congolese company Société Nationale d’Électricité (SNEL)’s application to set aside an ICC award rendered against it and the Democratic Republic of Congo, confirming France’s pro-enforcement stance. The Court held that as a matter of principle, the irreconcilability between an arbitral award and a non-EU foreign judgment may amount to a breach of international public policy in circumstances where the foreign judgment has first obtained exequatur in France and the irreconcilable decisions result in mutually exclusive consequences. In the present case, because the Congolese judgment relied upon by SNEL had been denied exequatur for lack of proper notice to the opposing party, no irreconciliability could arise. The Court reaffirmed that the mere disregard of a foreign judgment’s res judicata effect by an arbitral award is not, in and of itself, contrary to international public policy. The Court further clarified that the exequatur judge exercises only limited review, verifying the existence of the arbitral award and the absence of any manifest breach of international public policy, dismissing SNEL’s other arguments based on capacity to arbitrate, arbitrability, and foreign procurement rules, which did not amount to a breach of French international public policy. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law, and Carl Szymura, associate at Le 16 Law.

IBA publishes emergency arbitration guide for young practitioners

The International Bar Association’s (IBA’s) Arb40 Subcommittee has published a guide titled Emergency Arbitration: A Practical Guide for Young Arbitration Practitioners, to provide practical and comparative guidance on the use of emergency arbitration (EA) as a means of obtaining urgent interim relief before a tribunal is constituted. The guide outlines the procedural framework governing EA, including its consensual basis, jurisdictional limits, appointment of emergency arbitrators within days, and the expedited conduct of proceedings under strict timelines. It explains that emergency arbitrators have broad procedural discretion but must balance speed with fairness, assessing factors such as urgency, irreparable harm, likelihood of success, proportionality, and necessity. The publication also analyses enforcement challenges, noting varied recognition of EA decisions across jurisdictions but high rates of voluntary compliance and settlement. In investment treaty arbitration, it highlights the limited availability of EA, complexities arising from State sovereignty, cooling-off periods, and most-favoured-nation provisions. Concluding that EA has become an integral feature of modern arbitration, the Subcommittee presents it as both a vital procedural tool and an important training ground for emerging practitioners in international dispute resolution.

SIDRA’s recommendations and the Singapore Ministry of Law’s consultation on Singapore Arbitration Reform

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA) has recommended reforms to Singapore’s International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA 1994), commissioned by the Ministry of Law to enhance efficiency, certainty, and party autonomy in arbitration. Key proposals include an opt-in right of appeal on points of law, codifying a choice of law rule linking arbitration agreements to the governing law of the underlying contract, and granting courts de novo review of jurisdictional rulings. Gustavo Moser and Jennifer Puntis from the arbitration team in the UK curated and oversaw an analysis by Ervin Tan, Advocate and Solicitor and Director at Adroit Law LLC, who comments on how these measures, while consistent with global reform trends, also depart from English law in important ways. The reforms are designed to control costs, reduce delays, and better meet commercial expectations, though they raise debates about balancing efficiency, accuracy, and finality. Ultimately, the analysis highlights that tribunal quality and institutional practices remain decisive in shaping the arbitration experience.

Courts must continue protecting plaintiffs in Mass Arbitration

Law360, London: When the defense bar came up with forced arbitration, it seemed to give companies broad latitude to evade accountability for legally dubious practices.