The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ordered a partial
enforcement of an arbitral award made in the United Arab Emirates
arising out of a construction dispute. The Court found a breach of
natural justice in one respect of the award, and severed the
affected parts while enforcing the balance.
The plaintiff, William Hare UAE LLC (William
Hare), was incorporated in Abu Dhabi. The defendant,
Aircraft Support Industries Pty Ltd (Aircraft
Support), was incorporated in Australia.
The parties were in dispute regarding the payment of retention
monies under a US$15m construction contract for works at the Abu
Dhabi International Airport. The dispute resolution clause of the
contract provided for arbitration, to be governed by the rules of
the Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to take place in
Abu Dhabi. The parties agreed that the arbitration was final and
An arbitral tribunal heard the dispute in December 2013, after
hearing an application by Aircraft Support to rely on supplementary
defences, including a defence that the tribunal was not
The arbitral award was issued in May 2014, ordering Aircraft
Support to pay US$797,500 in retention monies, and US$50,000 in
respect of a discount offered by William Hare for a final account.
William Hare sought to enforce the award in New South Wales.
Aircraft Support challenged the enforcement on the basis that
the award was contrary to public policy, in finding that William
Hare was entitled to a payment of US$50,000 when a claim for that
sum was not formally made, the tribunal had failed to give reasons,
and the tribunal failed to consider Aircraft Support's
contentions regarding a contract variation.
Section 8(7) of the International Arbitration Act 1974
(Cth) (IAA) provides that the Court may
refuse to enforce a foreign award if it finds that the award would
be contrary to public policy, including a breach of natural
The Court found:
there was a breach of natural justice by the tribunal in
ordering the payment of US$50,000, which was not specifically
identified in the statement of claim or responded to in the
defence, and was thought to have been abandoned (after appearing in
other preliminary arbitration documents);
the tribunal should have given notice to the parties that it
did not consider that claim to have been abandoned, and provide an
opportunity for the parties to make submissions;
the affected part of the award regarding the US$50,000 payment
was able to be severed, and the remainder was enforced under
section 8(7) of the IAA;
the tribunal's reasons were not inadequate and did not
reveal any failure to consider any part of Aircraft Support's
Peter Sise explores how your contractual clause for recovery of legal costs might not do what you think it does.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).