Australia: The arbitration regime in Australia: Five years on

2015 marks five years since the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA) was amended to ensure – in the words of the then Commonwealth Attorney-General Robert McClelland – that the "Act remains at the forefront of international arbitration practice". Concurrently, in the domestic context, New South Wales introduced the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (CAA) to facilitate the "fair and final resolution of commercial disputes by impartial arbitral tribunals without unnecessary delay or expense" (s 1C(1)).

These initiatives occured at the time of the joint Federal and NSW establishment of the Australian International Disputes Centre in Sydney (AIDC). The then NSW and Federal attorneys general said respectively of the centre that it would "position Sydney as the new regional hub for international dispute resolution" and that "Australia will be the place to come to when businesses want their problems fixed, and fixed fast and fairly".

This article considers the extent to which the objectives underpinning the introduction of amending federal and new state legislation have been effective, if they have not, why not, and what further steps can now be taken to engender the necessary culture of arbitration to promote a competitive and sustainable arbitration environment in Australia.

Arbitration v litigation: what are the benefits?

To begin, it would be useful to say something about the nature of Arbitration. It is nothing more than the consensual submission of a dispute by its parties to a third party for a determination by which they agree to be bound. The process is an alternative to the court system and, subject to any mandatory local law, the parties control the process by which the dispute will be determined. It is said to have a number of benefits when compared with court litigation. These include:


  • Australia enjoys a sophisticated regime for the efficient conduct of international and domestic arbitration, supported by the courts and reinforced by amendments to IAA and CAA over the last five years.
  • While arbitration figures in Australia are improving, they are still outshone by other centres in our region.
  • Challenges facing the development of a thriving arbitration culture lie in legal education and maintaining a competitive advantage with traditional litigation by reducing costs
  1. Privacy. The IAA (subject to opting in) and CAA make proceedings confidential. With few exceptions (eg where there is a court challenge), arbitration decisions and the names of the parties are not published.
  2. Neutrality. In international arbitration both the identity of the arbitrator or arbitrators and venue can be neutral from the perspective of the domicile of the parties.
  3. Flexibility. The parties are free to choose where the arbitration takes place and what law or institutional rules will govern the arbitration and procedure.
  4. Timing. Arbitration proceedings can be brought on relatively quickly for hearing subject to the availability of the parties and the arbitrators and necessary preparation time. Having said this, federal and state courts in New South Wales have through case management regimes implemented in recent years gone a long way to reducing the delays before hearing.
  5. Limited right of Appeal. Court proceedings at first instance might be amenable to one or possibly two levels of appeal. Arbitration is final, subject to very limited rights of appeal. Under the CAA for example, an appeal can only be made on a question of law on very limited grounds if the parties 'opt in' and agree no later than three months from the making of the award to preserve appeal rights and obtain leave of the court.
  6. Enforceability. In international arbitration, a real advantage is the operation of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the New York Convention), which provides for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in 153 countries. This is in contrast with the enforcement of foreign court judgments in Australia pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) (limited to 36 jurisdictions), or at common law.
  7. Cost. Although this is said to be a benefit, in reality, where arbitration is conducted like traditional litigation, costs are likely to be no cheaper (and taking into account additional costs of the arbitrator's fees and room hire, are likely to be more expensive) than traditional litigation.

Meeting the market

An extensive 2010 survey identified that the main factors influencing choice of the seat of arbitration are: the jurisdiction's formal legal infrastructure – its national arbitration law, track record in enforcing agreements to arbitrate and arbitral awards and its neutrality and impartiality (62 per cent); law governing the substance of the dispute (46 per cent); and other matters including the efficiency of court proceedings (45 per cent) (White & Case LLP and Queen Mary, University of London, '2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration', 2010). These criteria of choice are clearly satisfied in Australia.

A look at the federal and state regimes

The 2010 amendments to IAA included the following : clarification that the United Nations Committee on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law) , contained in Schedule 2 of the Act , applies to international arbitrations in Australia rather than state commercial arbitration acts; the introduction of a stricter 'real danger' test for challenging arbitrators on the basis of bias; rules for the disclosure of confidential information; clarification of the circumstances in which a foreign arbitral award may not be enforced on the grounds that it offends public policy; new rules for issuing subpoenas; and more detailed costs rules. The CAA which was ultimately introduced in similar form by other states (with the exception of the ACT) also adopted the provisions of the Model Law. The legislative structure gives both uniformity and best practice to the regime for the conduct of international and domestic arbitration in Australia.

Boundaries of judicial intervention

The boundaries of court intervention are limited. Article 5 of the Model Law and s 5 of the CAA expressly prohibit any court intervention beyond the express provisions of the relevant law. Further provisions also limit the boundaries of judicial intervention to the following:

  • Staying court proceedings when there is a valid arbitration agreement governing the parties' dispute (Model Law art 8; IAA s 7(2); CAA s 8);
  • Providing parties with interim measures of protection( Model Law art 9; CAA s 9);
  • Assisting with the appointment of an arbitral tribunal (Model Law art 11, 13 and 14; CAA s 11, 13 and 14);
  • Determining the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal (Model Law art 16; CAA s 16);
  • The recognition and enforcement of interim measures issued by an arbitral tribunal subject to a number of grounds for resistance (Model Law art 17H and 17I; CAA ss 17H and 17I; IAA s 19);
  • Assisting in taking evidence (Model Law art 27; CAA s 27);
  • Determining whether an arbitral award can be set aside (Model Law art 34; CAA s 34); and
  • Confining grounds for refusing to enforce an arbitral award (Model Law art 35 and 36; CAA ss 35 and 36; IAA s 8(5)).

Court enforcement of arbitration agreements

The international and domestic regimes for the conduct of arbitration in Australia are supported by the courts. As Allsop CJ and Croft J have suggested "[f]rom an economic point of view, a country where the courts are inconsistent in their approach and unpredictable in their treatment of international arbitral processes and awards does not, and is not likely to, attract any significant arbitration work." (Chief Justice James Allsop and Justice Clyde Croft, 'Judicial support of arbitration' (FCA) [2014] FedJSchol 5, 28 March 2014).

Australian courts will enforce arbitration agreements by staying any commenced court proceedings (Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O'Brien (1990) 169 CLR 332). Further, Australian courts may grant "anti-suit injunctions" to restrain parties to an arbitration agreement from bringing court proceedings in breach of that agreement (CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 at 392). The general approach of the courts is to interpret arbitration clauses widely (Comandante Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 45 at [165]).

There is a tendency to enforce arbitral awards in order to uphold contractual arrangements in international trade and to support certainty and finality in international dispute resolution (Uganda Telecom Limited v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 131 at [126]). If a party fails to challenge an award within the jurisdiction of the courts at the seat of the arbitration, it cannot then resist enforcement in later enforcement proceedings in Australia (DampskibsselskabetNorden A/S v Beach Building & Civil Group Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 696). Australian courts will give great weight to prior decisions of courts at the seat of arbitration dealing with the same issues, and it would generally be inappropriate for an enforcement court applying the New York Convention to reach a different conclusion from the court at the seat of the arbitration (Gujarat NRE Coke Limited v Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd [2013] FCAFC 109). The public policy ground does not confer broad discretion to refuse enforcement (Traxys Europ SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 276 at [105]).

The provisions of the IAA which require courts to enforce an international award were recently challenged as being inconsistent with Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, requiring Australian courts to exercise independent judicial power on the basis that enforcement of an award in the manner envisaged by the IAA meant the court was exercising judicial power without any independent judicial process (TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5). The High Court rejected this argument, unanimously holding that arbitral power is not judicial power, which operates regardless of the parties' consent, whereas arbitral power is dependent on it. Thus, in enforcing an arbitral award, a court is merely enforcing an agreement between the parties.

To further confidence in court support of arbitration, the Supreme courts in NSW and Victoria have introduced separate arbitration lists to provide specialist expertise when dealing with arbitration matters. The Federal Court registries each have an arbitration co-ordinating judge to manage matters under the IAA.

Additional procedural rules

In addition to the legislative regime and court support, the local appointing authority under IAA – the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) – has moved to introduce practical yet efficient procedural rules which might be adopted by parties. In 2011, it released the ACICA Expedited Arbitration Rules and a revised version of the ACICA Arbitration Rules. The expedited rules have an overriding objective to provide arbitration that is quick, cost effective and fair, considering the amounts in dispute and complexity of issues or facts involved. The revised ACICA Arbitration Rules provide for competitive best practice including emergency interim measures of protection before the arbitral tribunal has been constituted.

Australia therefore both internationally and domestically enjoys a sophisticated regime for the efficient conduct of international and domestic arbitration, which is supported by the courts and has been reinforced by the amendments to IAA and CAA over the last five years. The question is whether this supportive environment has of itself been sufficient for the promotion and the development of arbitration as a means of alternative dispute resolution in Australia.

How do we compare to our Asia Pacific neighbours?

Arbitration is, by nature, private. As such, figures for the number of international and domestic arbitrations being conducted are not readily available, particularly in respect of those arbitrations not conducted by institutions. Since AIDC opened in 2010, close to 40 cases have been registered with ACICA. The caseload has doubled in the last two years, compared to the two years before that. In 2013/2014, approximately 90 per cent of ACICA cases involved at least one foreign party. More than two thirds of these cases involved two foreign parties with no other connection to Australia1 . This compares with 259 new arbitrations in 2013 conducted by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre 2 , 156 cases in 2013 conducted by the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration 3 , 260 new cases in 2013 conducted by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre 4, and more than 1000 cases each year since 2007 by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission 5 . The figures in Australia are improving but well outshone by the Arbitration Centres in our near region. No figures are available for Australian domestic arbitration under the CAA post 2010. However in the 12 months since 1 September 2012, there were 25 arbitration related judgments in Australian courts, including 19 cases concerning domestic arbitration 6. This reflects at least some take up of the domestic regime by parties.

Factors inhibiting growth

In 2011, Croft J suggested that "[b]uilding, and maintaining, a reputation as a strong arbitral jurisdiction requires constant reinforcement, with positive and proactive measures by legislatures, governments, arbitral bodies, arbitration practitioners, as well as the judiciary" (Justice Clyde Croft, 'The Future of International Arbitration in Australia– a Victorian Supreme Court Perspective', Law Institute of Victoria seminar – "The Future of International Arbitration in Australia", 6 June 2011). Australia does provide a politically stable, neutral and court supported environment in which international and domestic arbitration might be undertaken by parties adopting world best practice enshrined in the IAA and CAA and local institutional rules. His Honour did however identify the nub of the problem, going on to say that "... this will all be for nothing if legal advisors do not start making use of Australia's competitive advantages to capture some of the dispute resolution work in the region".

Lawyers or their clients may be unaware of the availability of arbitration or, being aware, they have declined to adopt arbitration either for reasons of unsuitability or perception of lack of advantage when compared with the court system. Insufficient legal education then remains one significant factor inhibiting the growth of a thriving arbitration culture in Australia. Although alternative dispute resolution including arbitration has been taught in universities at post graduate level for some years it is only comparatively recently that specialist arbitration course modules have been available to undergraduates. This has meant that many practitioners (outside ADR specialists) may have little or no understanding of arbitration law and practice. The consequence is that arbitration clauses are not included in many suitable commercial agreements. If they are, a precedent might be used which is not appropriate to the circumstances of the parties resulting, in the international context, in an arbitration being seated or subject to institutional control outside Australia.

One particular aspect of education is related to the question whether arbitration can be perceived by potential users as offering real benefits when compared with court litigation. The issues of privacy, neutrality and particularly enforceability are important in international arbitration and those benefits are well known. Neutrality and enforceability are not such an issue in domestic arbitrations nor is timing where court lists are run efficiently and matters can be brought on for hearing quickly. In a recent survey interviewees expressed concerns over the "judicialisation" of international arbitration, the increased formality of proceedings and their similarity with litigation. Parties are reluctant to undertake arbitration where there is a perception that it is less timely, no cheaper and indeed could be more expensive than traditional litigation 7 .

Cost is of course a function of time spent. There might be a tendency amongst common law lawyers to run an arbitration like a trial requiring general discovery and wide ranging cross examination. If such procedure is adopted the cost will be no less. Parties and their advisors should be aware that arbitration does offer the option to adopt a procedure more tailored to the circumstances of the dispute. One way is to consider using institutional rules (for example the ACICA rules) which focus on the possibility of savings of time and thereby cost. Parties can of course go further by limiting general discovery or cross examination and/or adopting some other procedures more well known in the civil law system to reduce costs when compared with traditional litigation. In order to achieve this the parties and their lawyers will need to adopt a more flexible approach having been satisfied of course that the procedure is one with which they are comfortable. As a starting point they need to be aware that such an approach is available. The education issue is gradually being addressed. Currently in Australia, arbitration is offered at undergraduate level in 21 law schools and at postgraduate level in 10 law schools. Additionally, arbitration is being promoted by regional law societies, and by peak arbitration bodies including ACICA and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators running courses and workshops. Education with the support of the stakeholders identified by Croft J is fundamental to the development of a thriving arbitrations culture.

The development of Australia's arbitration culture

The dynamics of the market for arbitration in Australia are subject to a number of variables. Significant regional competition for international arbitration is found in PRC, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. Individual centres are subject to different levels of public or private funding, legislative structure, court support and commercial viability. What they share is an established arbitration culture. Based upon usage, arbitration and its benefits are not as well known in Australia. Where other user criteria are clearly met, the challenge facing the development of a thriving arbitration culture within Australia lies in legal education. An understanding of arbitration and its potential advantages including the saving of costs is at the heart of maintaining a real and competitive advantage to the traditional court system. Unlike the court system, the parties to an arbitration can, properly informed, adapt their own procedure resulting in a saving of costs. Whether parties and their lawyers are prepared to modify their approach to alternative dispute resolution in appropriate cases to allow this to occur, will determine the extent to which arbitration can develop as a real alternative - both internationally and domestically in Australia.


1ACICA caseload figures at the time of this article.
2 Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 'Total Number of Cases Handled by the SIAC as of 31 December 2013'.
3 Kanishk Verghese, 'Arbitration in Asia: The next generation?', Asian Legal Business, 1 July 2014.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6Albert Monichino SC and Alex Fawke, 'International arbitration in Australia: 2012/2013 in review' (2013) 24 ADRJ 208, p 209-210.
7 Queen Mary, University of London and PricewaterhouseCoopers, 'Corporate Choices in International Arbitration: Industry Perspectives', 2013

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

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”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.