Australia's growing reputation as a pro-enforcement jurisdiction

Australia has consolidated its standing as a pro-enforcement jurisdiction for international arbitration, not only in proceedings against private award debtors but also in proceedings against foreign states.

Recent authority confirms a markedly arbitration-friendly approach by Australian courts, which have, subject to limited statutory exceptions, enforced awards and declined to permit foreign state immunity to defeat recognition and enforcement.

Enforcement framework

The enforcement framework in Australia is underpinned by two principal treaty instruments:

• the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention); and
  
• the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention).

Both conventions have the force of law in Australia by virtue of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (Arbitration Act), and, in the absence of specified circumstances, Australian courts are required to recognise and enforce awards rendered under either convention. With respect to sovereign immunity, section 9 of the Foreign State Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) (Immunities Act) provides that foreign states are generally immune from the jurisdiction of Australian courts. However, section 10 of the Immunities Act establishes a significant exception, stipulating that a state may submit to the jurisdiction of Australian courts "by agreement or otherwise," with "agreement" expressly defined to include a treaty.

Recent developments in relation to enforcement against foreign states

A series of recent cases has interpreted the meaning of the exception in section 10 of the Immunities Act. This is in the context of applications for recognition and enforcement of investment treaty awards against sovereign award debtors under the New York Convention and the ICSID Convention.

Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain(2025)

In August 2025, the Federal Court of Australia in Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain¹ confirmed that four intra-EU ICSID awards rendered under the Energy Charter Treaty against Spain are enforceable in Australia. Spain's arguments - that it had not waived immunity, that EU law displaced the ICSID Convention, that EU member states had modified the ICSID Convention inter se, and that the assignments of the awards were invalid - were each rejected. The Court relied on Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg² decision (see below) in finding Spain had unequivocally waived jurisdictional immunity by acceding to the ICSID Convention.

Republic of India v CCDM Holdings LLC (2025)

By contrast, in January 2025, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in Republic of India v CCDM.³ It found that India did not waive foreign state immunity under theImmunities Act for the purposes of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Australia by becoming a party to theNew York Convention.

The decision turned on India's reservation carving out non-commercial disputes from the scope of the New York Convention. The Court held that the commercial reservation qualified India and Australia's mutual obligations, and that India's ratification of the New York Convention did not give rise to a waiver of foreign state immunity to the "unmistakable" standard identified in Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services.

Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg (2023)

In April 2023, the High Court of Australia handed down its long-awaited decision in Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services.⁴ The court held that Spain's entry into the ICSID Convention amounted to waiver of foreign state immunity from the jurisdiction of Australian courts in proceedings to recognise and enforce an ICSID award, but not in respect of execution.

Spain has now become a judgment debtor for approximately €125 million and, despite exhausting all avenues of appeal, has failed to comply with the judgment or pay any associated successive costs orders. In March 2024, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that Spain must pay security for the costs of an interlocutory application brought by it to set aside ex parte examination orders against Spanish consular officers.⁵

With respect to the practical implications of these developments:

• entry into the ICSID Convention will in principal amount to an unequivocal submission to the jurisdiction of Australian courts for the purposes of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards;
  
• the same appears to be true for the New York Convention on current authorities. However,reservations to the New York Convention, such as those made by India, may preserve a state's immunity from such proceedings;
  
• while jurisdictional immunity may be waived, the execution of judgments against sovereign assets involves a separate legal analysis under sections 30 and 32 of the Immunities Act. Creditors should be prepared to address additional hurdles at the enforcement stage.

Australiancourts respect award finality, setting a high bar to resisting enforcement

A high bar has been set by Australian courts for successfully resisting enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention. Courts will grant conservatory measures to prevent dissipation of assets against which awards can be enforced. Taking a look at some recent case law:

• Qinao Lianchuang Development v Shandong Yulong Gold (2025):⁶ The Federal Court awarded a freezing order on local assets pending the enforcement of an award worth in excess of $24 million, pursuant to the Arbitration Act, Federal Court Rules and the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
• Roadpost v Beam Communications (2025):⁷ The Federal Court made orders for the enforcement of a Canadian arbitration award in excess of CAN $2.3 million by recognising and enforcing the award and making an order for specific performance to the same effect as the award. However, the court refused to grant declaratory relief mirroring the award, holding that such relief does not constitute 'enforcement' within the meaning of section 8(3) of the Arbitration Act.⁸
• Guangzhou Huada Venture Capital v Zhu (2024):⁹ The Federal Court made orders for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in excess of ¥ 11 million made by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission where the respondent failed to appear.
• StoneX Financial v Ambrose (2024):¹⁰ The Federal Court made orders for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in excess of US $700,000 made in the United States. The Court held that the enforcement of the award would not be contrary to public policy, as the respondents had the opportunity to challenge their indebtedness to the underlying transaction in the arbitration and elected not to participate in that process.

Practical impact of these decisions going forward

The recent jurisprudence underscores Australia's robust, pro-arbitration posture. Unless a clear statutory defence or reservation applies, Australian courts will recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards, including those rendered against sovereign entities, and are willing to grant urgent interim relief such as freezing orders to preserve the efficacy of such awards. For award creditors, Australia remains an attractive forum for enforcement.

Footnotes:

¹ Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain [2025] FCA 1028.

² Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. [2023] HCA 11.

³ Republic of India v CCDM Holdings LLC [2025] FCAFC 2.

⁴ Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. [2023] HCA 11.

⁵ Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. v Kingdom of Spain (security for costs) [2024] FCA 234.

⁶ Qinao Lianchuang (Zhuhai) Development Co. Ltd v Shandong Yulong Gold Co. Ltd [2025] FCA 912.

⁷ Roadpost Inc v Beam Communications Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 120.

⁸ Ibid [8].

⁹ Guangzhou Huada Venture Capital No 1 Investment Enterprise (Limited Partnership) v Zhu [2024] FCA 938.

¹⁰ StoneX Financial Inc. v Ambrose (No 2) [2024] FCA 501.

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.

Lawyers Weekly Law firm of the year 2021	Employer of Choice for Gender Equality (WGEA)