- Australia—Federal Court refuses enforcement of foreign award for procedural irregularities (Hub v Energy City Qatar)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- What did the primary judge decide?
- What did the Full Court decide on appeal?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: In an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia enforcing an arbitration award under section 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA 1974),the Full Court of the Federal Court found that the arbitration award should not be enforced on the basis that the tribunal was not composed in accordance with the agreement of the parties, which is a proper basis to resist enforcement under IAA 1974, s 8(5)(e (implementing Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention and Article 36(1)(a)(iv) of the Model Law). The court also found that as the failure to compose the tribunal in accordance with the agreement of the parties is fundamental to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, there was little scope to exercise the court’s discretion to enforce the award. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of the parties’ agreement in any arbitration proceedings. It also confirms that Australian courts will interpret the IAA 1974, to the extent permissible by its language, with the aim of preserving the uniform framework established by the New York Convention and the Model Law and maintaining a degree of international harmony and concordance of approach to international commercial arbitration. Written by Gitanjali Bajaj, partner and co-head for International Arbitration Asia-Pacific, and Adriana Abu Abara, solicitor, at DLA Piper.
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