Hub Street appeal ' What does it mean for arbitration in Australia?

• Published date: 15 September 2021
• Subject Matter: International Law, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, International Courts & Tribunals, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution
• Law Firm: Holding Redlich
• Author: Mr Geoff Farnsworth

We previously covered the decision of the Federal Court in Energy City Qatar Holding Company v Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1116.

Readers will recall that the decision involved an application for the enforcement in Australia of an arbitration award published in Qatar according to the Commonwealth International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA). By virtue of Australia's adoption of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (known as the New York Convention), and adoption (at state and federal level) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, Australia is considered a 'pro-arbitration' country so it was perhaps to be expected that enforcement might be granted, notwithstanding some significant departures in the conduct of the arbitration in Qatar.

But just how 'pro' arbitration are we? The Full Court of the Federal Court has now reversed the decision at first instance ([2021] FCAFC 110) and declined to make orders for the enforcement of the award in the process tempering slightly the 'pro-arbitration' stance adopted by the trial judge.

The facts

The dispute concerned a contract under which Hub agreed to provide street furniture to Energy City, a development in Qatar. Energy City paid a substantial advance to Hub and when the project did not proceed, Energy City asked for a refund. However, no refund was forthcoming and Energy City purported to refer the dispute to arbitration...