Challenges and appeals

Challenging and appealing arbitral awards in Australia

This Practice Note considers challenges and appeals to international and domestic arbitral awards in Australia. It considers the relevant legislative framework, judicial attitudes to set-aside proceedings, and setting aside or challenging domestic and international arbitral awards in Australia.

For more information, see Practice Note: Challenging and appealing arbitral awards in Australia.

Challenges to arbitral awards in China

This Practice Note considers the general procedure for challenging arbitral awards in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) including the jurisdiction of the PRC courts, the different procedures for domestic and foreign-related arbitral awards in relation to the legal grounds for setting aside awards, the application of the Prior Reporting System, and the hearing and ruling

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

ICC announces 13th MENA conference on international arbitration

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has unveiled plans for its 13th MENA Conference on International Arbitration, scheduled for 10-11 February 2025 in Abu Dhabi. This event aims to explore the evolving landscape of arbitration in the Middle East and North Africa, featuring discussions on critical topics such as the interplay between state courts and arbitration, interest rates in regional disputes and the efficacy of expedited procedures. The conference will be preceded by a training session on oral advocacy in international arbitration, reflecting the ICC's commitment to enhancing practitioner skills. With a roster of distinguished speakers from across the MENA region, the conference promises to deliver invaluable insights into the latest trends and challenges in international arbitration.

Arbitration, jurisdiction, energy sector (Frontier Holdings Ltd v Petroleum Exploration (Pvt) Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) overruled an ICC tribunal hearing a dispute between a Pakistani company and a Bermuda company pertaining to hydrocarbon exploration in Pakistan and held that contrary to the tribunal’s earlier order, the tribunal did indeed have jurisdiction. The issue arose out of certain standard agreements which expressly provided for international arbitration in certain instances and domestic arbitration in other instances but contained no express provision regarding disputes between a foreign working interest owner (WIO) and a domestic WIO. The same documents though contained a catchall provision referring to certain statutory rules which in turn contained a catchall domestic arbitration provision. The issue was therefore whether to interpret an ambiguous set of standard form documents in favour of foreign arbitration or domestic arbitration. The tribunal had held in favour of domestic arbitration even though the England and Wales Court of Appeal had earlier interpreted the same standard form documents as providing for foreign arbitration. The SICC reversed on the basis that the tribunal had failed to correctly appreciate the intent of the parties. Written by Feisal Hussain Naqvi, senior partner at Bhandari, Naqvi & Riaz (Lahore); associate member at 3 Verulam Buildings (London).

UN announces Panama's signature of Mauritius Convention on Transparency

The United Nations has reported that Panama has signed the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, also known as the Mauritius Convention on Transparency. This brings the total number of signatories to 25, with nine State Parties. The signing coincides with the Convention's 10th anniversary and underscores its continued relevance in promoting transparency in investor-State arbitrations. Additionally, UNCITRAL announced that the European Union has committed to three more years of financial support for the Transparency Registry, which serves as a central repository for investor-State dispute settlement documents.

Reinforcing the Raison D’ Etre of the New York Convention (Neilan International v Powerica)

Arbitration analysis: This case dealt with an application for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award settling a dispute between Neilan International Co Ltd (Neilan) and Powerica Ltd (Powerica) (together, the ‘Parties’). The disputes arose out of agreements for the design, construction and commissioning of thermal power plants in Sudan for National Electricity Corporation (NEC), the employer. Following a unilateral assignment of rights by NEC to Neilan, disputes arose between the Parties and arbitration proceedings commenced, resulting in the passing of a partial award dated 21 April 2015 (on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and validity of the arbitration agreement) (Partial Award) and a final award dated 27 September 2018 (Final Award). Neilan applied for enforcement of the Final Award before the High Court of Bombay (Court). Powerica opposed the enforcement on grounds that there existed no valid arbitration agreement between Powerica and Neilan, and that enforcement of an award upholding the unilateral assignment was in contravention with Indian public policy (under sections 48(1)(a) and 48(2)(b) of the (Indian) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Indian A&C Act)). Neilan argued that the validity of the arbitration agreement (per the applicable governing law, ie Sudanese law) had already been duly considered and upheld by the award, which had attained finality, and it was not open for the enforcing court to revisit the merits of the dispute when examining whether the Final Award was in contravention to Indian public policy. The court rejected Powerica’s objections, holding that the tribunal’s findings on the merits of the arbitration agreement were final and could not be challenged at the stage of enforcement. The court held that revisiting the issue would constitute a review of the merits of the award, impermissible under section 48 of the Indian A&C Act. The court reinforced the principle that public policy defences to the enforcement of foreign awards entail a narrow reading, in consonance with the pro-enforcement ethos of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention). Written by Ila Kapoor, partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, New Delhi Kshipra Pyare, associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, New Delhi Sahaj Mathur, associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, New Delhi.