The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
Is a “stay of enforcement” of a judgment within the meaning of s 15(2) of the Foreign Judgments Act brought about by s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act?
Talacko v Bennett [2017] HCA 15, 3 May 2017
Privy Council advice that addresses what is required for foreign judgements
Can foreign state immunity prevent proceedings to register in Australia a foreign judgment? Not if that judgment would fall within the commercial transaction exception to immunity, the High Court has now told us; though immunity from execution will still be a hurdle.
Case note by Peter Willis. School sues foreign donor government in Australian court – sovereign immunity – what is a commercial transaction?
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.
The Full Federal Court has confirmed a “modified universalism” approach to cross-border insolvencies, and provided guidance on what is required for the “adequate protection” of rights of local creditors under the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (‘Model Law’), as enacted in Australia by the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth).
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has recently decided a case interpreting the ‘inherent vice’ exclusion under the widely used Institute Cargo Clauses (A) policy and the equivalent exclusion under the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (UK) (‘MIA’) in contradistinction to the insurance coverage term ‘peril of the sea’. Because the Marine Insurance Act 1909 (Cth) is for all intents and purposes identical to the MIA, and because of the wide customary usage of the Institute Cargo Clauses, the case is important to all practitioners in the fields of marine insurance and international trade law.