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

Action to enforce US$21M award against Guinea dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Mealey’s: A US District Court for the District of Columbia judge on 18 February 2025 granted the Republic of Guinea’s motion to set aside default entered against it and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction a telecommunications company’s action to enforce an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) award worth than US$21m after finding that Guinea was not a party to the underlying arbitration agreement.

ICCA announces leadership changes and new governing board appointments

The International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) has announced changes to its leadership structure, with Audley Sheppard KC elected as President-Elect to succeed current President Stanimir Alexandrov in 2026. Dyalá Jiménez, former Minister of Foreign Trade of Costa Rica, will assume the role of Vice President from 1 April 2025. Additionally, five new Governing Board Members have been appointed: Aisha Abdallah (Kenya), Chiann Bao (Singapore), Tunde Fagbohunlu (Nigeria), Shaneen Parikh (India) and Vladimir Pavić (Serbia), whilst Judith Gill has been re-elected for a second term. The new appointments will take effect from 1 April 2025, with the new board members formally joining at the ICCA-KIAC Conference in Kigali on 5 June 2025.

Stay of application for injunction in favour of Arbitration (Hunt v IPS Law LLP and Others)

Arbitration analysis: The claimant, Mr Hunt, invested £1.05m in January 2023 through IPS Law LLP (‘IPS Law’), the second defendant, which was meant to hold the funds for the first defendant, Oceania Capital Reserves Ltd (‘Oceania’). IPS Law later apparently transferred the funds, but the circumstances in which that occurred (and the instructions on which IPS Law and its principal, Mr Farnell, the third defendant, relied) were unclear. Mr Hunt applied for an injunction to preserve the funds in IPS Law’s account. The defendants, in return, applied for a stay of the proceedings, arguing that the Investment Agreement between Mr Hunt and Oceania (with IPS Law as the ‘Investment Escrow Party’) referred disputes to arbitration. The court held that IPS Law was not a party to the arbitration clause and could not rely upon it under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999) (Mr Farnell accepted he was not a party). The court decided, however, that there was a serious issue to be tried in relation to the handling of Mr Hunt’s funds and accordingly granted a proprietary injunction. The case addresses issues over the court’s jurisdiction to order a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and its ability to order relief where funds held in a solicitors’ client account have been paid away apparently without instruction. Written by Oliver Browne, partner, at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Court of Appeal—final anti-suit injunction varied to avoid Russian court penalty (UniCredit v RusChemAlliance)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal ordered that a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) should be varied to remove the injunctive element but maintain a declaration that the English court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The applicant bank (UniCredit) would otherwise have incurred a significant penalty from the Russian court. The original ASI had prevented the respondent (RCA) (who had breached the Paris-seated arbitration clause) from bringing proceedings in Russia. The court confirmed that CPR 3.1 (the court’s general powers of management) and CPR 52.30 (reopening of final appeals) provide the court with powers to vary or revoke an ASI, if the commercial situation allows. There is no material distinction between where the order is an interim vs a final order and a pragmatic approach will be afforded when considering factors related to the application, namely (i) if the applicant has been coerced, (ii) English public policy and (iii) the impact if the application is not granted. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.