- Australia—enforcement and recognition of an arbitral award that has been satisfied (EBJ21 v EBO21)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: The Federal Court of Australia denied an application for the recognition and enforcement of a consent award made in accordance with the Articles 30 and 31 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law) and Article 40.1 of the ACICA Arbitration Rules 2016. The court held that in circumstances where an arbitral award had been satisfied and the obligations in the award had been discharged there was no justification to enter judgment (ie enforce the award) nor any justification for a declaration recognising the award since the award was recognised by force of law on and from the date the arbitral award is made. The court also allowed the respondents’ application for suppression orders that sought to protect their rights of confidentiality in the arbitration. The court granted the suppression orders on the basis that it was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice by making orders as may be required to maintain the protection of the confidentiality regime provided by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA) and the parties’ agreement. Written by Gitanjali Bajaj, partner and co-head for International Arbitration Asia-Pacific and Michael Robbins, special counsel, at DLA Piper Australia.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial