Enforcement of arbitral awards where the seat of the arbitration is Australia, how the Eisenwerk decision might still be a sleeping assassin

This article examines the enforcement of foreign awards in Australia. It identifies and explains the difference between a “foreign award” and “international arbitration award,” observing it is a somewhat surprising but potentially significant distinction. The article then moves to consider the consequences of the distinction with particular reference to the Australian arbitral landscape. Australia has dual arbitration regimes operating at the state and federal level. Particular attention is given to the still controversial Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Australian Granites Ltd. v. Eisenwerk Hensel Bayreyth Dipl-Ing Burkhardt GmbH. The article concludes by promoting a line of interpretation that will effectively allow subsequent courts to avoid the potentially disastrous effects the Eisenwerk decision may yet still wreak.

Can you seek security for costs in international arbitration in Australia

International arbitrations can be conducted under either federal or State legislation in Australia. In both cases complexities arise in the resolution of procedural questions, such as whether security for costs can be granted. There is scant Australian case law on such issues. This article considers whether an arbitral tribunal or a court has the power [*2] to order security for costs in an international arbitration in Australia. After analysing Australia's international arbitration laws and discussing New Zealand and House of Lords' authority, it is argued that unless the parties have specifically empowered the arbitral tribunal to order security for costs, only the relevant court has that power, and even that is uncertain.

Can you seek security for costs in international arbitration in Australia?

International arbitrations can be conducted under either federal or State legislation in Australia. In both cases complexities arise in the resolution of procedural questions, such as whether security for costs can be granted. There is scant Australian case law on such issues. This article considers whether an arbitral tribunal or a court has the power [*2] to order security for costs in an international arbitration in Australia. After analysing Australia's international arbitration laws and discussing New Zealand and House of Lords' authority, it is argued that unless the parties have specifically empowered the arbitral tribunal to order security for costs, only the relevant court has that power, and even that is uncertain.

New dog, old tricks : solving a conflict of laws problem in CISG arbitrations

Parties to international sale of goods transactions often exercise their rights to choose a governing law and refer disputes to arbitration . Where their choice is incomplete, as is the case where the contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is chosen, complex conflict of laws problems can arise, including disputes over the governing limitation period. While such disputes are traditionally resolved using conflict of laws methodologies, this article argues a superior solution can be achieved through procedural late. Through a simple discretion, arbitral tribunals may apply the limitation period from either the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) Principles 2004 or the UN Limitation Period Convention. Such an approach makes determination of the governing limitation period a simpler process, allowing parties to focus their attention on what they are really concerned with—the merits.