The Queensland Court of Appeal upholds an arbitrator’s award despite procedural missteps – no “real unfairness” or “practical injustice”.
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia adopts (guardedly) the ‘prima facie’ approach standard of review to applications for stay of court proceedings brought in the face of an arbitration agreement, bringing Australian jurisprudence in line with that of Singapore and Hong Kong.
Arbitration – scope of arbitration agreement – whether a dispute as to an alleged breach of trust constitutes a “matter” within the scope of an arbitration agreement – proper approach to construction of arbitration agreement – whether the arbitration agreement incapable of being performed – application for stay of proceedings under s 8 of Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA)
Arbitrator rendered an award styled “Final Award” that failed to deal with an issue referred to arbitration. Aggrieved party applied to have the issue determined by the Supreme Court. Other party sought a stay relying on the parties’ arbitration agreement. Held that the award was not a final award and that the arbitrator’s mandate continued to resolve the remaining issue.
In exceptional circumstances, a court exercising its inherent jurisdiction will temporarily stay its proceedings pending the hearing and determination of a related arbitration between one of the parties to the court proceedings and a third party (say, an insurer) if there are compelling case management considerations justifying that course.
In a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia, Allsop CJ (sitting at first instance) has left the door open as to whether the Federal Court of Australia will depart from the (obiter) views of the Victorian Court of Appeal and instead adopt a default indemnity costs rule in arbitration related court proceedings, as is the case in Hong Kong.
The negative effect of the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle (enshrined in the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration) requires that courts not make pre-emptive declarations as to arbitral jurisdiction, and adopt a prima facie review when entertaining applications to stay court proceedings. A recent Australian decision threatens to undermine this.
This recent decision of the Arbitration List judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria suggests that the requirement that parties will be given a “reasonable opportunity” to present their case will be viewed robustly by a supervising court and not through the prism of domestic court litigation
CAS panel finds “strands in the cable” sufficiently strong to overturn the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal’s decision
In this decision, the CAS used the ‘strands in the cable’ approach to the analysis of the circumstantial evidence before it, the majority concluding that it was comfortably satisfied that all players violated clause 11.2 of the 2010 AFL Anti-Doping Code
This is the second in our review about the feasibility of ad hoc admission in Singapore. The recent unsuccessful application by high profile UK defamation silk Heather Rogers QC has made the process all the more difficult.
Handshake agreement did not waive or vary requirement in Mediation Agreement for a signed settlement agreement.
The Victorian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal granted urgent enforcement of a Swiss arbitral award obtained by a Formula 1 driver against his former team.
Croft J was asked to consider whether a hearing before the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal was a “domestic commercial arbitration” pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 for the purpose of issuing subpoenas to compel third parties to give evidence or produce documents.
Are proceedings before the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal an “arbitration” for the purposes of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic) such that ASADA is entitled to subpoenas pursuant to section 27A of the Act requiring witnesses to attend and produce documents before the Tribunal?