Enforcement of Arbitral Awards where the Seat of the Arbitration is Australia — How the Eisenwerk Decision Might Still be a Sleeping Assassin'

Stephen Barrett-White, Christopher Duncan Kee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)515-528
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of International Arbitration
Volume24
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Enforcement of Arbitral Awards where the Seat of the Arbitration is Australia — How the Eisenwerk Decision Might Still be a Sleeping Assassin''. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this