The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
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?
On an application to enforce a foreign arbitral award in the Federal Court, the respondent unsuccessfully sought to resist enforcement on the grounds that he had not received “proper notice” of the original arbitration proceeding.
The first ever Victorian Bar and Law Institute of Victoria Joint Conference, held on Friday 17 October 2014, was an opportunity for the profession and the judiciary to confront the complexities and challenges of modern high stakes litigation and dispute resolution.
The Full Court of the Federal Court has refused to set aside or resist enforcement of an international arbitral award on the basis of an allegation that there was a breach of natural justice in making certain findings of fact and that the award was therefore against Australian public policy.
A majority of the Victorian Court of Appeal has found that VCAT is a “court” for the purposes of s8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (the CAA) with the result that if a party to the arbitration agreement so requests, the Tribunal is precluded from hearing the proceeding and the dispute must be referred to arbitration.
This case considers the requirements of procedural fairness in an arbitration.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Discovery, Disclosure and Other Matters) Act 2014 Vic (commenced 12 May 2014) aims to improve the efficiency of the discovery process.
APRAG recently hosted its 10th anniversary conference in Melbourne, at which key issues concerning arbitration in the Asia-Pacific region were discussed.
Article by Robert Williams and Eugenia Levine
This case decided that VCAT is not a “court” for the purposes of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (“CAA”) and therefore is not obliged to refer parties to arbitration in accordance with section 8 of the CAA where the matter before VCAT is the subject of an arbitration agreement.
The High Court of Australia’s judgment in TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5 (13 March 2013) is the most important development in arbitration in Australia in the past 12 months, and has been keenly awaited by arbitration users and practitioners.