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.

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.

Australian conditions imposed in stay of foreign arbitration matter

In Walter Rau Neusser Oel Und Fett AG v Cross Pacific Trading Ltd, the construction of arbitration clauses and the operation of s.7 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) were considered - scope of the arbitration issue, mandatory stay issue and discretionary stay issue were examined.

Update of the UNCITRAL arbitration rules revision

The UNCITRAL Rules Revision process began in September 2006 - the first revision in 30 years. The revision process has been a complicated and difficult one. It is a process that cannot be rushed as one might reasonably expect the new edition of the UNCITRAL Rules needs to serve another 30 years. This article provides an insight into the conduct of the 50th session of Working Group II, the Working Group within UNCITRAL that has been charged with preparing draft rules for the Commission to consider and approve. It was a very interesting session in which a number of significant and controversial issues were considered. Our report focuses on three specific issues - the treatment of set-off; witnesses; and interim measures.