You are here:
AustLII >>
Databases >>
Federal Court of Australia >>
2012 >>
[2012] FCA 276
[Database Search]
[Name Search]
[Recent Decisions]
[Noteup]
[Download]
[Help]
Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 276 (23 March 2012)
Last Updated: 23 March 2012
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry
Pvt Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 276
Citation:
|
Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA
276
|
|
|
Parties:
|
TRAXYS EUROPE SA v BALAJI COKE INDUSTRY PVT LTD
and BOOYAN COAL PTY LIMITED (ACN 115 420 598)
|
|
|
File number:
|
NSD 1490 of 2011
|
|
|
Judge:
|
FOSTER J
|
|
|
Date of judgment:
|
|
|
|
Catchwords:
|
ARBITRATION – international
arbitration – enforcement of foreign award under s 8(3) of the
International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) – whether an award made in
England pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in a contract for the
sale of metallurgical
coke between a Luxembourg entity and an Indian corporation
should be enforced in Australia – whether, as a matter of principle
and
subject to certain statutory grounds upon which the Court might refuse to
enforce a foreign award, the award creditor is entitled
to a judgment in the
Australian enforcement court in the terms of the foreign award – whether,
as a condition precedent to
enforcement, the award creditor is obliged to prove
that the award debtor has assets in Australia – whether, in the
circumstances
of the case, the Court should refuse to enforce the foreign award
because to do so would be contrary to public policy – scope
and meaning of
the term “public policy” in s 8(7) of the
International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) discussed – no reason not
to enforce the award
|
|
|
Legislation:
|
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth),
s 13(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996 (UK), s 101 and s 103
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Ind), s 34 and
s 36 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 3 and
s 106Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 491 Federal
Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 4 and
s 53International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), ss 2D, 3, 8,
9 and 39International Arbitration Amendment Act 2010Judiciary
Act 1902 (Cth), s 35 The Constitution, s 73
|
|
|
Cases cited:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of last submissions:
|
6 October 2011
|
|
|
Place:
|
Sydney
|
|
|
Division:
|
GENERAL DIVISION
|
|
|
Category:
|
Catchwords
|
|
|
Number of paragraphs:
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Applicant:
|
Mr JS Lockhart SC, Mr JA Watson
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Applicant:
|
Clifford Chance
|
|
|
Counsel for the First Respondent:
|
Mr DL Williams SC, Mr R Glover
|
|
|
Solicitor for the First Respondent:
|
McCullough Robertson Lawyers
|
|
|
Counsel for the Second Respondent:
|
Ms LW Chan
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:
|
Vankish Lawyers
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
|
|
|
|
|
TRAXYS EUROPE SAApplicant
|
AND:
|
BALAJI COKE INDUSTRY PVT LTDFirst
Respondent
BOOYAN COAL PTY LIMITED
(ACN 115 420 598) Second Respondent
|
|
|
DATE OF ORDER:
|
|
WHERE MADE:
|
|
THE COURT:
- NOTES
that the applicant continues the undertaking as to damages first given to the
Court by its Counsel on 2 September 2011.
- Upon
the applicant continuing the undertaking referred to in paragraph 1 above,
ORDERS that the orders made in paragraphs 3 to 14
(both inclusive) of Annexure
“A” (Freezing Order) annexed to the orders made by
Foster J on 2 September 2011 be continued until further order of the
Court.
- ORDERS
that, by 3 April 2012, the parties lodge with the Associate to
Foster J an agreed form of declaration and other orders giving
effect to
Reasons for Judgment published on 23 March 2012 by Foster J in this
proceeding.
- ORDERS
that, in the event that the form of declaration and other orders is not agreed
by 3 April 2012, each party file and serve by
10 April 2012 a draft of
the declaration and orders which that party contends that the Court should make,
together with a brief Written
Submission of no more than five (5) pages in
length in support of its version.
- ORDERS
that the form of relief will thereafter be determined on the papers.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal
Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
|
|
GENERAL DIVISION
|
NSD 1490 of 2011
|
BETWEEN:
|
TRAXYS EUROPE SA Applicant
|
AND:
|
BALAJI COKE INDUSTRY PVT LTD First Respondent
BOOYAN COAL PTY LIMITED
(ACN 115 420 598) Second Respondent
|
JUDGE:
|
FOSTER J
|
DATE:
|
23 MARCH 2012
|
PLACE:
|
SYDNEY
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
- The
applicant (Traxys) is a company whose head office is in the Grand-Duchy
of Luxembourg. It has no assets in Australia and no presence here. It provides
financial, marketing and distribution services to the mining industry. It has
representative offices in more than 20 countries.
- The
first respondent (Balaji) is a company organised under the laws of India.
Its head office is in Kolkata, India. It is part of a group of companies which
imports coal and coke into India and which manufactures low ash metallurgical
coke and coking coal for supply to others. It also
trades more generally in
coal and coke.
- Traxys
has applied to the Court for orders recognising and enforcing an award dated
22 June 2011 and published on the same day (the Award). The Award
was made in England by three arbitrators, Dr Serge Lazareff,
Ms Siobán Healy QC and Mr Christopher Newmark (the
arbitrators) under the auspices of the London Court of International
Arbitration. Under the Award, the arbitrators ordered Balaji to pay forthwith
to Traxys the sums of US$2,576,250.38 and €260,668.58, together with
interest, the fees and expenses of the arbitration and
costs. These latter two
amounts total GB£427,576.40. Balaji has not paid any amount to Traxys in
satisfaction of the Award.
- In
pars 1 and 2 of its Amended Originating Application, Traxys claims:
- Pursuant
to s. 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) [a
declaration] that the Applicant is entitled to have the award dated 22 June
2011 published and notified to the parties by
Dr. Serge Lazaref, Ms.
Siobán Healy QC and Mr. Christopher Newmark (the Award)
recognized by this Court and to enforce the Award as if the Award were a
judgment or order of this Court.
- Orders
that:
(a) There be a judgment against the First Respondent in an amount equal to the
total of (i) US$2,576,250.38 and EUR 260,668.58; plus
(ii) interest on
those amounts at the London Interbank Offered Rate +2% compounded with quarterly
rests, from 6 August 2009 to the
date of judgment, plus (iii) an amount of
£63,665.32 representing costs of the arbitration giving rise to the Award
plus (iv);
the sum of £363,911.08 as costs of the reference carried out for
the purposes of the arbitration.
(b) The Respondent pay post judgment interest on the amounts of US$2,576,250.38
and EUR 260,668.58, calculated from the date of judgment
herein to the date
of payment in accordance with the manner of calculating interest referred to in
(a) above.
- In
addition to the relief sought in pars 1 and 2 extracted at [4] above,
Traxys claims orders that Messrs Andrew Cummins and Brian
Silvia be appointed as
receivers of two shares (the shares) held by Balaji in the second
respondent (Booyan), a corporation incorporated in Australia, with powers
to inspect the books and records of Booyan and to sell the shares or to wind
up
Booyan pursuant to s 491 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The
shares comprise the whole of the issued capital of Booyan. Traxys also seeks
orders for costs against both Balaji and
Booyan.
- On
29 September 2011, at the commencement of the final hearing, Senior Counsel
for Traxys submitted that I should proceed to determine
the claims made by
Traxys in pars 1 and 2 of its Amended Originating Application together with
the costs of those claims and to defer
consideration of the remaining claims
made by Traxys, namely, the claims that receivers should be appointed to the
shares with the
powers specified in Traxys’ Amended Originating
Application. Senior Counsel submitted that Traxys was at that time unable
properly to litigate the receiver claims because Balaji had raised for the first
time only very recently an assertion that, on 16
July 2011, the shares had
been sold to a third party, Concast Exim Limited (Concast), pursuant to
an agreement for sale and purchase of shares entered into between Balaji and
Concast on 16 July 2011 with the consequence
that Concast has held the
entire beneficial interest in the shares since 16 July 2011. According to
Balaji, Concast paid the whole
of the purchase price for the shares
(INR 50,000,000) on 16 July 2011 and was, at all times thereafter,
entitled to require Balaji
to deliver an appropriate transfer of the shares.
- Initially,
Balaji resisted the course proposed by Senior Counsel for Traxys. However,
immediately after the parties closed their
evidentiary cases and before final
submissions, Senior Counsel for Balaji accepted that the appropriate course was
to proceed in
the manner suggested by Senior Counsel for Traxys.
- Accordingly,
with the consent of all parties, I agreed to defer consideration of the claim
made by Traxys for the appointment of
receivers to the shares and the question
of the powers of such receivers, if appointed. Therefore, these Reasons for
Judgment deal
only with the claims for relief made by Traxys in pars 1 and
2 of its Amended Originating Application and the claims for costs which
it makes
consequential upon those claims for relief. When giving effect to these Reasons
for Judgment, I will make an order separating
the trial of the claims for relief
made in pars 1 and 2 of Traxys’ Amended Originating Application from
the remaining claims
for relief made by it.
THE AWARD
- The
arbitrators found that, on 2 July 2009, Traxys and Balaji had entered into
a contract for the sale of 30,000 mt (+/- 10% at Traxys’
option) of
low ash metallurgical coke with a laycan of 25–30 July 2009 at a
price of USD237.50 per metric tonne FOB Alexandria
+ Sea Freight to the Indian
port of Kandla. By agreement with Balaji and the original seller of the coke to
Balaji (an Egyptian
corporation, Al Nasr Co), Traxys had been interposed
between Al Nasr Co and Balaji in order to provide to Balaji a more generous
time frame within which to pay for the coke. Balaji failed to pay for the coke.
Traxys paid Al Nasr Co, took control of the coke
shipment and resold that
shipment to a third party.
- In
the arbitration, Traxys claimed as damages for breach of its contract with
Balaji the difference between the sale price of the
coke shipment under that
contract and the amount realised under the substitute sale.
- According
to the arbitrators, there was no dispute between Traxys and Balaji in the
arbitration as to:
(a) The existence or terms of the contract as
alleged by Traxys; and
(b) Balaji’s breach of that contract constituted by its failure to pay
the contract price.
- However,
in the arbitration, Balaji had contended that Traxys had agreed to act as its
financier only and that the contract between
Balaji and Traxys was not truly a
contract for the sale of goods. Balaji argued that Traxys never obtained title
to the coke and
had no right to divert the shipment to Europe and to resell the
cargo there. Balaji’s contentions were rejected by the arbitrators.
- Balaji
participated fully in the arbitration. It was represented by Counsel and
solicitors. Its legal representatives cross-examined
witnesses called in the
arbitration by Traxys. Balaji called evidence in support of its case in the
arbitration. One witness called
by Balaji was Mr Deepak Sharma. Both
Mr Sharma and another Balaji executive, Mr Vineet Argawal, attended
each hearing day in the
arbitration (viz 28 February 2011, 1 March
2011 and 2 March 2011).
- The
contract between Traxys and Balaji contained the following dispute resolution
clauses:
LAWS/ARBITRATION
Any disputes arising out of or in connection with this contract between Balaji
and Traxys, including any question regarding its existence,
validity or
termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the
Rules of the London Court of International
Arbitration (LCIA), which Rules are
deemed to be incorporated by reference to this clause. The seat, or legal
place, of arbitration
shall be London. The language to be used in the
arbitration shall be English.
This contract, including the arbitration clause, shall be governed by,
interpreted and construed in accordance with the substantive
laws of England and
Wales excluding the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International
Sale of Goods of April 11, 1980
(CISG).
- At
[143] of the Award, the arbitrators found that Traxys was entitled to recover
from Balaji interest on the damages awarded at the
rate of LIBOR + 2%,
compounded at quarterly rests, from 6 August 2009 to the date of payment of
the amounts awarded under the Award.
They also said that, by their reference to
“LIBOR”, they intended to refer to the three month LIBOR rates for
US dollars
as published on the website of the British Bankers’
Association.
- As
agreed between Traxys and Balaji, the arbitration was conducted under the Rules
of the London Court of International Arbitration
(the LCIA Rules). Rule
26.9 of those Rules provides:
All awards shall be final and binding on the parties. By agreeing to
arbitration under these Rules, the parties undertake to carry
out any award
immediately and without any delay (subject only to Article 27); and the
parties also waive irrevocably their right
to any form of appeal, review or
recourse to any state court or other judicial authority, insofar as such waiver
may be validly made.
- Thus,
according to the LCIA Rules, the Award is final and binding upon the
parties.
POST-AWARD EVENTS
- In
early July 2011, Balaji commenced proceedings against Traxys in the Court of the
District Judge at Alipore in the South District
of India (the Indian District
Court proceedings) in which Balaji seeks to have the Award set aside or,
alternatively, to have its operation stayed.
- On
8 July 2011, Balaji applied to the Indian District Court for an interim
stay of the operation of the Award. A judge of that Court
refused the
application for a stay, apparently on the ground that the application was
incompetent having regard to s 34 and s 36
of the Indian
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the Indian Arbitration
Act).
- On
22 July 2011, Balaji appealed from the decision of the Indian District
Court judge to refuse an interim stay.
- On
29 July 2011, the High Court of Kolkata (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
(the Indian High Court) granted an injunction in favour of Balaji whereby
it restrained Traxys from “... putting the Award into
execution”. That order was made ex parte. The terms of that
order were not notified to Traxys or to its English lawyers until 30 August
2011.
- In
the meantime, on 26 July 2011, a judge of the High Court of Justice,
Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, in England
(the English
Commercial Court) ordered that Traxys have permission to enforce the Award
in the same manner as a judgment or order of that Court to the same effect.
On
the same day, Mr Justice Teare, of the same Court, granted interim freezing
injunctions against Balaji and an interim anti-suit
injunction against Balaji
restraining it from continuing or prosecuting or taking any further steps in the
Indian District Court
proceedings and from commencing any other proceedings by
which it seeks to challenge or set aside the Award or the English Commercial
Court proceedings. On 2 August 2011, those orders were continued until
further order of the English Commercial Court.
- Balaji
has not taken any steps in England to challenge the Award.
- Traxys
has not taken any steps in the Indian District Court proceedings or in the
appeal in the Indian High Court. It has not appeared
in either of those
proceedings.
- Balaji
has not appeared at all in the proceedings brought by Traxys in the English
Commercial Court. Copies of all of the orders
made by that Court on
26 July 2011 and on 2 August 2011 have been served on Balaji in India.
- On
1 September 2011, permission was given to Traxys by the English Commercial
Court to make an application in Australia for freezing
orders.
- On
2 September 2011, I made asset freezing orders in these proceedings against
Balaji. Those orders were made ex parte. Those orders were continued on
29 September 2011 and remain in force.
- Balaji
has no assets in the United Kingdom or Europe. According to the evidence before
me at the moment, the only assets which Balaji
has in Australia are its shares
in Booyan.
- Traxys
complains that Balaji has not complied with asset disclosure orders made by this
Court and by the English Commercial Court.
It submits that the Court should not
proceed upon the basis that the shares in Booyan are Balaji’s only assets
in Australia.
BALAJI’S INTEREST IN BOOYAN
- According
to official records maintained by the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission (ASIC) in respect of Booyan, as at 25 August 2011 and
also as at 21 September 2011, the whole of the issued capital of Booyan
(two ordinary
fully paid shares of $1.00 each) are registered in the name of
Balaji and are said to be beneficially owned by it. It appears that
those
shares were transferred to Balaji in the first half of 2010.
- As
at 29 August 2011, Booyan was the holder of Exploration Permit No 969
in the District of Rockhampton issued by Queensland Mines
and Energy, Department
of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. That permit authorises
Booyan to explore for coal in
the area covered by the permit, which is an area
located approximately 30 km north-west of Bundaberg, Qld.
- At
the hearing before me, Balaji tendered a copy of the Minutes of a Meeting of the
Board of Directors of Balaji held in Kolkata
on 11 April 2011 and a copy of
the Minutes of a Meeting of that Board of Directors held in Kolkata on
15 July 2011. Each of those
Minutes is signed by Naresh Sharma.
- At
the 11 April 2011 meeting, the directors of Balaji resolved to sell its
entire shareholding in Booyan for a minimum consideration
of AUD1 million
or its equivalent in Indian rupees. Mr Naresh Sharma was authorised to
negotiate a sale on those terms on behalf
of Balaji and to execute all necessary
documents on behalf of Balaji.
- At
the 15 July 2011 meeting, the directors of Balaji resolved immediately to
write off all debts due to Balaji from Booyan.
- Correspondence
passing between Concast and Balaji in the period between 20 April 2011 and
18 June 2011 proved the following:
(a) Preliminary discussions
concerning a merger or joint venture between Balaji and Concast commenced on
19 April 2011;
(b) On 12 May 2011, Concast offered to buy from Balaji a 50% stake in
Booyan for AUD300,000;
(c) Further discussions between representatives of Concast and
representatives of Balaji ensued in the period 12–24 May 2011.
Those
discussions culminated in Balaji offering to sell to Concast its entire
shareholding in Booyan for AUD14 million plus repayment
in full of the
loans made by Balaji to Booyan;
(d) Negotiations continued into June 2011; and
(e) On or about 18 June 2011, an in-principle agreement for the sale to
Concast of the whole of Balaji’s shareholding in Booyan
was reached at a
price of AUD1,050,000 (equivalent to approximately INR 50 million),
subject to the execution of a formal Share Sale
and Purchase Agreement.
- On
16 July 2011, INR 50 million was deposited into Balaji’s
bank account held at the Kolkata branch of the Allahabad Bank.
- The
evidence before me showed that the amount which Booyan had invested in EP969 as
at 30 June 2011 was $415,971 and that Booyan’s
only other asset as at
that date was its cash at bank ($26,629.86). As at that date, it had
liabilities totalling $301,218.38, of
which $264,759 was a debt due to Balaji.
- Naresh
Sharma did not give evidence before me. From the evidence that was tendered
before me, it is clear that he was the officer
of Balaji who had the carriage of
all negotiations with Concast. He signed all of the relevant correspondence
which came from Balaji
and received all of the relevant correspondence from
Concast.
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION
- In
order to succeed in the present application, Traxys must produce to the
Court:
(a) The duly authenticated original Award or a duly certified
copy; and
(b) The original arbitration agreement under which the Award purports to have
been made or a duly certified copy.
(Section 9(1) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth)
(the IAA)).
- It
must also satisfy the requirements of r 28.44 of the Federal Court Rules
2011.
- Traxys
has produced to the Court a copy of the Award duly certified by Edward Gardiner,
a Notary Public in England. Mr Bennett,
who is the solicitor in England
retained by Traxys, has produced to the Court copies of the Contract for Sale
and Purchase of Metallurgical
Coke dated July 2009 between Traxys and Balaji
which he has certified as correct. That contract contains the arbitration
clause
which I have extracted in full at [14] above.
- I
am satisfied that the Award was made as it purports to have been made and that
it was made pursuant to the arbitration agreement.
I am also satisfied that
Traxys has complied with r 28.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Balaji did not dispute any of these matters.
- The
United Kingdom is a Convention country within the meaning of that term in the
IAA (see the definition in s 3(1) of the IAA).
So is the Republic of
India.
- The
Award is a foreign award for the purposes of the IAA (as to which see the
definitions of agreement in writing, arbitral award,
arbitration agreement, Convention country, and foreign
award in s 3(1) of the IAA which are extracted in full at [52] below).
- Section
8(1) of the IAA provides that a foreign award is binding for all purposes on the
parties to the arbitration agreement in
pursuance of which it was made. Section
8(3) provides that, subject to Pt II of the IAA, a foreign award may be
enforced in this
Court “... as if the award were a judgment or
order of [this] Court”. Section 8(3A) provides that the
Court may only refuse to enforce a foreign award in the circumstances mentioned
in subs (5) and
subs (7) of s 8. In s 8(5) and s 8(7),
the legislature has spelt out the specific limited circumstances in which the
Court may refuse
to enforce a foreign award made in accordance with the
Convention. Section 8(7)(b) provides that the Court may do so if it finds
that to enforce the award would be contrary to public policy.
Section 8(7A) provides that enforcement of a foreign award would be
contrary to public policy if the making of the award was induced or affected by
fraud or corruption or if a breach of the rules of
natural justice occurred in
connection with the making of the award.
- In
the present case, Balaji does not rely upon any of the grounds specified in
s 8(5) of the IAA. Nor does it allege that the making
of the Award was
induced or affected by fraud or corruption or that a breach of the rules of
natural justice occurred in connection
with the making of the Award. Its
resistance to the current claims for relief made by Traxys is based upon three
broad propositions.
These are:
(a) The Court has no power to enter
a judgment or to make an order giving effect to the Award as sought by Traxys.
The Court only
has power to enforce the Award. Enforcing the Award is
tantamount to execution of the Award, as if it were a judgment or order of
the
Court. Enforcement of the Award does not require or even permit the entry of
judgment. Traxys has not yet applied to enforce
the Award in the sense in which
it is used in s 8(3) of the IAA.
(b) In any event, one of the matters which an applicant for enforcement of a
foreign award in Australia must establish is that, at
the time enforcement is to
be ordered, the party against whom enforcement is sought has assets here. If
the applicant fails to prove
that matter, enforcement must be denied to it.
Alternatively, if there are no assets within Australia at the time enforcement
is
sought, relief should be refused as a matter of public policy.
(c) In any event, to enforce the Award would be contrary to public policy and
the Court should refuse to enforce the Award for that
reason.
- Given
that Traxys has proven that the Award is a foreign award within the meaning of
that expression in the IAA and otherwise satisfied
the requirements of s 9
of the IAA and r 28.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the issues
for determination at present are those raised by the three contentions advanced
by Balaji which I have summarised at
[46] above.
THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME
- Section 8
of the IAA provides for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards in Australia. That section is in the
following
terms:
8 Recognition of foreign awards
(1) Subject to this Part, a foreign award is binding by virtue of this Act for
all purposes on the parties to the arbitration agreement
in pursuance of which
it was made.
(2) Subject to this Part, a foreign award may be enforced in a court of a State
or Territory as if the award were a judgment or order
of that court.
(3) Subject to this Part, a foreign award may be enforced in the Federal Court
of Australia as if the award were a judgment or order
of that court.
(3A) The court may only refuse to enforce the foreign award in the circumstances
mentioned in subsections (5) and (7).
(4) Where:
(a) at any time, a person seeks the enforcement of a foreign award by virtue of
this Part; and
(b) the country in which the award was made is not, at that time, a Convention
country;
this section does not have effect in relation to the award unless that person
is, at that time, domiciled or ordinarily resident
in Australia or in a
Convention
country.
(5) Subject to subsection (6), in any proceedings in which the enforcement of a
foreign award by virtue of this Part is sought, the
court may, at the request of
the party against whom it is invoked, refuse to enforce the award if that party
proves to the satisfaction
of the court
that:
(a) that party, being a party to the arbitration agreement in pursuance of which
the award was made, was, under the law applicable
to him or her, under some
incapacity at the time when the agreement was made;
(b) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law expressed in the
agreement to be applicable to it or, where no law is so
expressed to be
applicable, under the law of the country where the award was made;
(c) that party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator
or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise
unable to present his or her
case in the arbitration proceedings;
(d) the award deals with a difference not contemplated by, or not falling within
the terms of, the submission to arbitration, or
contains a decision on a matter
beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
(e) the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not
in accordance with the agreement of the parties or,
failing such agreement, was
not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place;
or
(f) the award has not yet become binding on the parties to the arbitration
agreement or has been set aside or suspended by a competent
authority of the
country in which, or under the law of which, the award was
made.
(6) Where an award to which paragraph (5)(d) applies contains decisions on
matters submitted to arbitration and those decisions can
be separated from
decisions on matters not so submitted, that part of the award which contains
decisions on matters so submitted
may be enforced.
(7) In any proceedings in which the enforcement of a foreign award by virtue of
this Part is sought, the court may refuse to enforce
the award if it finds
that:
(a) the subject matter of the difference between the parties to the award is not
capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws
in force in the State or
Territory in which the court is sitting; or
(b) to enforce the award would be contrary to public
policy.
(7A) To avoid doubt and without limiting paragraph (7)(b), the enforcement of a
foreign award would be contrary to public policy
if:
(a) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption;
or
(b) a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the
making of the
award.
(8) Where, in any proceedings in which the enforcement of a foreign award by
virtue of this Part is sought, the court is satisfied
that an application for
the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent
authority of the country in which,
or under the law of which, the award was
made, the court may, if it considers it proper to do so, adjourn the
proceedings, or so
much of the proceedings as relates to the award, as the case
may be, and may also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement
of
the award, order the other party to give suitable security.
(9) A court may, if satisfied of any of the matters mentioned in subsection
(10), make an order for one or more of the
following:
(a) for proceedings that have been adjourned, or that part of the proceedings
that has been adjourned, under subsection (8) to be
resumed;
(b) for costs against the person who made the application for the setting aside
or suspension of the foreign award;
(c) for any other order appropriate in the
circumstances.
(10) The matters
are:
(a) the application for the setting aside or suspension of the award is not
being pursued in good faith; and
(b) the application for the setting aside or suspension of the award is not
being pursued with reasonable diligence; and
(c) the application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been
withdrawn or dismissed; and
(d) the continued adjournment of the proceedings is, for any reason, not
justified.
(11) An order under subsection (9) may only be made on the application of a
party to the proceedings that have, or a part of which
has, been
adjourned.
- Section 39(1)
of the IAA provides that this Court must have regard to the matters specified in
s 39(2) of the IAA when interpreting
the IAA, when considering exercising a
power under s 8 of the IAA to enforce a foreign award or when considering
exercising the power
under s 8 to refuse to enforce a foreign award
including a refusal because the enforcement of the award would be contrary to
public
policy.
- Section
39(2) of the IAA is in the following terms:
(2) The court or authority must, in doing so, have regard
to:
(a) the objects of the Act; and
(b) the fact
that:
(i) arbitration is an efficient, impartial, enforceable and timely method by
which to resolve commercial disputes; and
(ii) awards are intended to provide certainty and
finality.
- The
objects of the IAA are set out in s 2D. Section 2D
provides:
2D Objects of this Act
The objects of this Act are:
(a) to facilitate international trade and commerce by encouraging the use of
arbitration as a method of resolving disputes; and
(b) to facilitate the use of arbitration agreements made in relation to
international trade and commerce; and
(c) to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in
relation to international trade and commerce; and
(d) to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
adopted in 1958 by the
United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration at its
twenty-fourth meeting; and
(e) to give effect to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial
Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law
on 21 June 1985 and amended by the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law on 7 July 2006; and
(f) to give effect to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes
between States and Nationals of Other States signed
by Australia on
24 March 1975.
- Various
terms are defined in s 3(1) of the IAA for the purposes of Part II
– Enforcement of foreign awards. Relevantly, those expressions and
definitions are:
agreement in writing has the same meaning as in the
Convention.
arbitral award has the same meaning as in the Convention.
arbitration agreement means an agreement in writing of the kind
referred to in sub article 1 of Article II of the Convention.
Convention country means a country (other than Australia) that is
a Contracting State within the meaning of the Convention.
foreign award means an arbitral award made, in pursuance of an
arbitration agreement, in a country other than Australia, being an arbitral
award
in relation to which the Convention applies.
- Section 3(2)
of the IAA provides:
- Interpretation
...
(2) In this Part, where the context so admits, enforcement, in
relation to a foreign award, includes the recognition of the award as binding
for any purpose, and enforce and enforced have
corresponding meanings.
- Section 3
is in Part II—Enforcement of foreign awards, as are s 8
and s 9.
- The
Convention referred to in s 3(1) and in Pt II of the Act
is:
... the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
adopted in 1958 by the United Nations Conference
on International Commercial
Arbitration at its twenty-fourth meeting, a copy of the English text of which is
set out in Schedule
1.
- Articles
II, III, IV and V of the Convention provide:
ARTICLE II
- Each
Contracting State shall recognize an agreement in writing under which the
parties undertake to submit to arbitration all or any
differences which have
arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal
relationship, whether contractual or
not, concerning a subject matter capable of
settlement by arbitration.
- The
term “agreement in writing” shall include an arbitral clause in a
contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by
the parties or contained in an
exchange of letters or telegrams.
- The
court of a Contracting State, when seized of an action in a matter in respect of
which the parties have made an agreement within
the meaning of this article,
shall, at the request of one of the parties, refer the parties to arbitration,
unless it finds that
the said agreement is null and void, inoperative or
incapable of being performed.
ARTICLE III
Each Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce
them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the
territory where the award
is relied upon, under the conditions laid down in the following articles. There
shall not be imposed substantially
more onerous conditions or higher fees or
charges on the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards to which this
Convention applies
than are imposed on the recognition or enforcement of
domestic arbitral awards.
ARTICLE IV
- To
obtain the recognition and enforcement mentioned in the preceding article, the
party applying for recognition and enforcement shall,
at the time of the
application, supply:
(a) The duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof;
(b) The original agreement referred to in article II or a duly certified copy
thereof.
- If
the said award or agreement is not made in an official language of the country
in which the award is relied upon, the party applying
for recognition and
enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into
such language. The translation shall
be certified by an official or sworn
translator or by a diplomatic or consular
agent.
ARTICLE V
- Recognition
and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against
whom it is invoked, only if that party
furnishes to the competent authority
where the recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that:
(a) The parties to the agreement referred to in article II were, under the law
applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the
said agreement is not valid
under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication
thereon, under the law
of the country where the award was made; or
(b) The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of
the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration
proceedings or was
otherwise unable to present his case; or
(c) The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within
the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it
contains decisions on matters
beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the
decisions on matters submitted
to arbitration can be separated from those not so
submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted
to arbitration may be recognized and enforced; or
(d) The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not
in accordance with the agreement of the parties,
or, failing such agreement, was
not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place;
or
(e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside
or suspended by a competent authority of the country
in which, or under the law
of which, that award was made.
- Recognition
and enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the competent
authority in the country where recognition and
enforcement is sought finds
that:
(a) The subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by
arbitration under the law of that country; or
(b) The recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public
policy of that country.
- The
IAA is intended to give effect to the Convention. The IAA (including s 8)
must be interpreted in light of the Convention.
CONSIDERATION
Issue 1—Is the entry of a judgment or the making of an order of the Court
authorised by the IAA and, if so, is either of those
steps a necessary step in
the enforcement process contemplated by the IAA?
Balaji’s Submissions
- Balaji
submitted that:
(a) Pursuant to s 8(1) of the IAA, the foreign
award is binding “... by virtue of [the IAA] for all
purposes ...”. Pursuant to s 8(2) and s 8(3), the
foreign award may be enforced “... as if [it] were a
judgment or order of [the relevant] court”. Section 8(2)
and s 8(3) provide for a form of statutory deeming of the award as being a
judgment or order of the Court. The IAA requires
no judicial act for a foreign
award to become binding and to be a judgment of this Court. The words
“... as if ...” signify the automatic effect which
s 8(2) and s 8(3) have upon a foreign award which is sought to be
enforced in Australia. A foreign
award becomes a judgment of the Court the
moment any attempt to enforce that award is made.
(b) Neither the making of a declaration nor the entry of a judgment or order
is a necessary step in the enforcement of a foreign award
in this Court or in
the appropriate courts of the States and Territories.
(c) There is a real difference between the “recognition”
of a foreign award and the “enforcement” of such an award.
The IAA distinguishes between the two concepts. An award may be
“recognised” without being “enforced”.
“Recognition” is generally a defensive process.
“Enforcement” goes one step further and usually involves
using the award as a sword, not just as a shield. In this context, the concept
of “enforcement” is the same as
“execution”.
(d) There is no controversy at the moment between the parties as to whether
or not the Award is binding and no controversy at the
moment as to the
enforceability of the Award. The first time that such a controversy will arise
is when Traxys presses its claim
that receivers be appointed to Balaji’s
shares in Booyan: That is to say, such a controversy will not arise unless and
until
Traxys takes “... a curial step towards
enforcement”. That is the point in time when the automatic deeming
effect of s 8(3) is engaged.
(e) Section 53 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
(the Federal Court Act) provides:
53 Enforcement of judgment
(1) Subject to the Rules of Court, a person in whose favour a judgment of the
Court is given is entitled to the same remedies for
enforcement of the judgment
in a State or Territory, by execution or otherwise, as are allowed in like cases
by the laws of that
State or Territory to persons in whose favour a judgment of
the Supreme Court of that State or Territory is given.
(2) This section does not affect the operation of any provision made by or under
any other Act or by the Rules of Court for the execution
and enforcement of
judgments of the Court.
(f) Rule 41.10 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 provides:
41.10 Execution generally
(1) A party may apply to the Court to issue a writ, order or any other means of
enforcement of a judgment or order that can be issued
or taken in the Supreme
Court of the State or Territory in which the judgment or order has been made, as
if it were a judgment or
order of that Supreme Court.
(2) An order made under subrule (1) authorises the Sheriff, when executing the
orders of the Court, to act in the same manner as
a similar officer of the
Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which the order is being executed is
entitled to act.
(3) A party who wants to enforce an order in more than one State or Territory
may adopt the procedures and forms of process of the
Supreme Court of the State
or Territory in which the judgment or order has been made.
Note It is not necessary to adopt different modes of procedure and forms of
process in each State or Territory.
(g) In due course, at the appropriate time, Traxys may avail itself of all
measures by way of execution of or recovery under the Award
as are available to
it in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
(h) The Award, once it is deemed to be a judgment of this Court under
s 8(3) of the IAA, is a judgment debt for the purposes of the
Civil
Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (the CPA) (see s 3 of the CPA).
(i) A judgment debt (including the Award) may be enforced in accordance with
s 106 of the CPA. That section provides:
106 Judgments for payment of money
(cf Act No 9 1973, section 109; Act No 8 1901, sections 4 and 5)
(1) A judgment debt may be enforced by means of any one or more of the
following:
(a) a writ for the levy of property,
(b) a garnishee order,
(c) in the case of a judgment of the Supreme Court or the District Court, a
charging order.
(2) Subject to the uniform rules, a writ for the levy of property is sufficient
authority for the
Sheriff:
(a) to seize and to sell goods of or to which the judgment debtor is or may be
possessed or entitled or which the judgment debtor
may, at law or in equity,
assign or dispose of, and
(b) to seize money belonging to the judgment debtor, and
(c) to seize and to realise cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds,
specialties or other securities for money belonging
to the judgment debtor, and
(d) to enter into possession of, and to sell, land of or to which the judgment
debtor is seized or entitled, or which the judgment
debtor may, at law or in
equity, assign or dispose of, and
(e) to take and to sell choses in action or equitable interests in goods or land
held by the judgment debtor.
(3) The power conferred on the Sheriff by subsection (2)(a) may not be
exercised in relation
to:
(a) any clothing, or
(b) any bedroom or kitchen furniture, or
(c) any tools of trade (including vehicles, plant, equipment and reference
books) not exceeding, in aggregate value, the sum prescribed
by the uniform
rules,
if the clothing, furniture or tools are used by the judgment debtor or by any
member of his or her
family.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the Sheriff is taken to have
entered into possession of land when notice of the proposed
sale of the land is
published in accordance with the uniform rules.
(5) The power conferred on the Sheriff by subsection (2)(d) may not be
exercised in relation to land if the amount outstanding under
the judgment is
less than the jurisdictional limit of the Local Court when sitting in its Small
Claims Division.
(6) A garnishee order or charging order addressed to the Crown binds the Crown
as garnishee or chargee, as the case requires.
Note. Divisions 2, 3 and 4, respectively, apply to the enforcement of writs for
the levy of property, garnishee orders and charging
orders.
(j) None of these measures includes the appointment of receivers to the
shares. That entitlement (if it exists at all) must arise
in some other way.
In general terms, the appointment of a receiver is part of a regime designed to
preserve assets not to levy execution
in respect of judgments or orders of the
Court. An order that receivers be appointed to the shares would not constitute
“enforcement” of the Award within Pt II of the IAA. As
matters presently stand, there is no application before the Court which
qualifies as an
application for “enforcement” of the Award
pursuant to s 8(3) of the IAA.
Traxys’ Submissions
- Traxys
submitted that:
(a) When proper regard is had to the terms of
Pt 41 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 and Pt 39 of the
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), it is plain that
execution may not be levied against assets by a litigant without first obtaining
a judgment or order of the Court.
Those rules do not recognise
“deemed” judgments and orders.
(b) Even if the entry of a judgment or the making of an appropriate order is
not necessary, there is nothing preventing the Court
from entering a judgment or
making an appropriate order. The proposition that the IAA does not permit the
taking of such steps is
incorrect.
(c) The submissions made on behalf of Balaji are contrary to authority. In
Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 206; (2011) 277
ALR 441 (Uganda No 2) at [10]–[13] (p 443), the
Court held that it was appropriate to direct the entry of judgment so that there
is a proper foundation
upon which execution may thereafter be undertaken.
Decision
- Part II
of the IAA is entitled: “Enforcement of Foreign Awards”.
That heading is part of the IAA (s 13(2)(d) of the Acts Interpretation
Act 1901 (Cth)). It focuses on “enforcement” of foreign
awards and does not mention “recognition” of such awards. It
comprises ss 3–14. Section 8 is headed: “Recognition
of foreign awards”. Notwithstanding the terms of the heading to
s 8 of the IAA, which is not part of the IAA in any event, the words
“recognise” and “recognition” do not
appear at all in the text of the section. The words which feature prominently
in s 8 are “enforce” and
“enforcement”.
- Section 3(2)
provides that “enforcement”, in relation to a foreign award,
includes the recognition of the award as binding for any purpose. In other
words, in Pt II of the IAA, the notion of “enforcement”
carries with it as a necessary logical component the concept of
“recognition”. That is, a court cannot enforce an award
which it does not recognise, although, it may recognise an award without
necessarily enforcing
it.
- The
concepts of “recognition” and
“enforcement” are both found in the Convention, usually
juxtaposed. In particular, Art III obliges each contracting state to
recognise Convention
awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with
the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is sought to be
enforced. Article IV lays down some facultative provisions. These are
reflected in s 9 of the IAA. Article V specifies the grounds upon
which recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused.
Articles III, IV
and V speak of a composite concept: “recognition
and enforcement”.
- As
mentioned at [49]–[51] above, in interpreting the IAA, in determining
Traxys’ present application and in considering
Balaji’s submissions
made in opposition to the relief which Traxys seeks, the Court is obliged to
have regard to the objects
of the IAA (as to which, see s 2D), the fact
that arbitration is an efficient, impartial, enforceable and timely method by
which
to resolve commercial disputes and the fact that awards are intended to
provide certainty and finality. In particular, as far as
s 2D is
concerned, the Court must have regard to the matters which are to be facilitated
according to s 2D(a), (b) and (c) and to
the stated object that effect must
be given to Australia’s obligations under the Convention. It would be
contrary to these
commands for the Court to adopt an overly technical approach
to enforcement applications unless such an approach was expressly required
by
the IAA.
- Here,
subject to Pt II of the IAA, the Award is binding for all purposes upon
both Traxys and Balaji. This is a consequence of the operation of s 8(1)
of the IAA and, to the extent that it may continue to be relevant, the operation
of r 26.9 of the LCIA Rules.
- In
Australia, at the election of the enforcing party, a foreign award may be
enforced in this Court or in an appropriate court of
a State or Territory (see
s 8(2) and s 8(3) of the IAA). In the present case, of course, Traxys
has chosen to seek enforcement in
this Court.
- The
requirement for leave to enforce a foreign award which had been in a previous
version of s 8(3) of the IAA, was removed when
the IAA was amended by the
International Arbitration Amendment Act 2010 (Act No 97 of 2010).
- The
removal of the requirement for leave of the Court to be obtained before
enforcement of a foreign award could proceed is consistent
with other amendments
made by Act No 97 of 2010. Amongst other things, those amendments
made clear that courts charged with the
responsibility of enforcing foreign
awards under the IAA might refuse to enforce such an award only in the limited
circumstances
mentioned in s 8(5) and s 8(7) of the IAA. There is no
general discretion unrelated to the grounds specified in s 8(5) and
s 8(7)
reposed in those courts to refuse to enforce such an award.
- The
IAA does not prescribe any procedure for registering a foreign award in the
records of this Court nor does it lay down any process
or procedure for
“recognising” a foreign award. The emphasis is on
“enforcement”. Section 3(2) provides that
“enforcement” includes “recognition”.
Section 3(2) accommodates the relevant language of Arts IV, V and VI
of the Convention (“... recognition and
enforcement ...”). In Australia, when
“enforcement” of a foreign award is under consideration,
there is no need to regard the concepts of “recognition” and
“enforcement” as separate concepts requiring separate
treatment. The latter incorporates the former.
- “Enforcement”
means applying legal sanctions to compel the party against whom the award has
been made to carry out its obligations thereunder.
- Article III
of the Convention requires each contracting state to enforce Convention awards
“... in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory
where the award is relied upon ...”. In the United Kingdom, for
example, s 101(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (UK) specifically
authorises a UK court to direct the entry of a judgment in terms of the award.
Section 101(2) is reminiscent of
s 8(3) of the IAA and provides:
A New York Convention award may, by leave of the court, be enforced in the same
manner as a judgment or order of the court to the
same effect.
- In
Uganda No 2, at [12]–[13] (p 443), I said:
- The
1958 New York Convention is intended to facilitate the recognition and
enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Convention countries.
The Act is
intended to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of such awards in
Australia. Unless the foreign arbitral award
is reflected in a judgment or order
of the Australian court in which recognition and enforcement is claimed, the
party seeking to
enforce that award will not be able to avail itself of the
execution and recovery mechanisms available in that court.
- Courts
in this country and elsewhere have accepted that the appropriate way of
recognising and enforcing a foreign monetary arbitral
award is for the enforcing
court to enter judgment or make an order for payment which reflects the terms of
that award: see for example
Xiadong Yang v S & L Consulting Pty Ltd
[2008] NSWSC 1051; FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v Democratic Republic of
Congo [2010] NSWSC 1394; Altain Khuder LLC v IMC Mining Inc (2011)
276 ALR 733; [2011] VSC 1; Norsk Hydro ASA v State Property Fund of Ukraine
[2002] EWHC 2120 (Comm); and IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National
Petroleum Corporation (2005) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 326; [2005] EWHC 726
(Comm). The words “as if” in s 8(3) of the Act, properly understood,
support this approach. In my view, s 8(3) means that, subject
to considering and
determining such of the statutory grounds for refusing to enforce a foreign
arbitral award as may be legitimately
raised in any particular case, this court
should treat the foreign arbitral award as if it were a judgment or order of
this court.
That is, once this court has decided to enforce the award, it should
give full effect to that decision by directing the entry of
an appropriate money
judgment or by making an appropriate order for payment.
- I
adhere to the views which I expressed in Uganda No 2 at
[12]–[13] (p 443). I wish to supplement the remarks which I made in
that case by adding that, as a matter of ordinary English,
the words
“... as if ...” in s 8(3) of the IAA mean
“... as [it] would be if ...”.
Section 8(3) should, therefore, be interpreted to mean: Subject to
Pt II of the IAA, a foreign award (as defined in the IAA),
may be enforced
in the Federal Court of Australia as it would be if it were a judgment or order
of this Court. That is to say, such
an award is not, and is not deemed to be,
by dint of the operation of s 8(3) alone, a judgment or order of this
Court. Steps have
to be taken to render it such a judgment or order. But, once
those steps have been taken, the terms of the decision embodied in
the award
become a judgment or order of this Court. That judgment or order must reflect
the Award and cannot differ in any material
way from the terms thereof.
- Furthermore,
the Federal Court Act does not envisage that there can be such a thing as a
“deemed” judgment or order of the Court.
“Judgment” is defined in s 4 as follows:
judgment means:
(a) a judgment, decree or order, whether final or interlocutory; or
(b) a sentence;
and includes a conviction.
- Section 4
contemplates that the judgment which is defined in that section will be a
judgment of this Court: That is to say, a formal
order made by this Court which
disposes of, or deals with, the proceeding then before it (per Mason J in
Moller v Roy [1975] HCA 31; (1975) 132 CLR 622 at 639). This is the sense in which the
word “judgment” is used in s 35 of the Judiciary Act
1902 (Cth) and in s 73 of The Constitution. Without such a
judgment, there is nothing from which a party can appeal. In my view, in this
Court at least, there is no room
for some notion of “deemed”
judgment or order.
- Section 53
of the Federal Court Act requires that there be a judgment of the Court before
any remedies by way of enforcement (whether
by execution or otherwise) may be
pursued. The existence of such a judgment is fundamental to the engagement of
s 53. The existence
of such a judgment is the starting point for the
engagement of r 41.10 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 and the
relevant provisions of the CPA and UCPR (esp Pt 39 of the UCPR). The
Constitutional requirement for this court to be seised
of a controversy which
must be quelled before it can be regarded as exercising the judicial power of
the Commonwealth can only satisfactorily
be met when a party seeks to enforce a
foreign award pursuant to s 8(3) of the IAA (assuming that that provision
is a valid law of
the Parliament) if the Court gives effect to its decision as
to the enforcement of that award by directing the entry of a judgment
or by
making an order in the terms of the award or by dismissing the application for
such relief on one or more of the grounds specified
in s 8(5) or
s 8(7) of the IAA. Either way, there must be a judicial determination of
the question whether the Award is to be enforced
or whether enforcement is to be
refused.
- In
any event, looked at purely as a practical matter, the question of whether a
foreign award should be enforced or whether enforcement
should be refused is a
matter which should be decided by this Court when an application for enforcement
is made. To postpone consideration
of the grounds upon which enforcement might
be refused until an application for a garnishee order or a writ for the levy of
property
is made would be unworkable.
- I
do not think that the appointment of receivers to the shares cannot be regarded
as a measure properly within the notion of “enforcement”
under Pt II of the IAA. Section 53, by its terms, does not confine
the enforcement of judgments to execution. Section 53 expressly
contemplates other methods of enforcement. The words “... or
otherwise ...” are apt to cover enforcement by the appointment of
a receiver.
- For
all of these reasons, I reject Balaji’s contentions in respect of
Issue 1.
Issue 2—The asserted pre-requisite that the enforcement applicant prove
that there are assets within the enforcement jurisdiction
- Senior
Counsel for Balaji went so far as to submit that an Australian court could not
even entertain an application to enforce a
foreign award unless that court is
first satisfied that there are assets in Australia against which execution might
be levied. It
was also submitted that, in the present case, I should find that
Balaji has no assets in Australia or, alternatively, that Traxys
has failed to
prove that Balaji has assets in Australia. Senior Counsel also submitted that,
in particular, an Australian court
should not direct the entry of judgment or
make an order in terms of a foreign award unless it is first satisfied that
there are
assets in Australia which belong to the party against whom recovery is
sought. These propositions were underpinned by the further
proposition that the
concept of “enforcement” necessarily contemplates action by
way of execution against particular assets. Thus, it was submitted that, if
there are no assets,
there can be no “enforcement”.
- Article III
in the Convention obliges each contracting state to recognise and enforce
foreign awards made in accordance with the
Convention. Recognition and
enforcement is to be in accordance with the rules of procedure of the
enforcement state.
- I
have already held that, subject to due consideration of the matters mentioned in
s 8(5) and s 8(7) of the IAA and subject to compliance
with the
requirements of s 9 of the IAA and the relevant rules of court, an
Australian court which has jurisdiction under the IAA
is obliged to enforce a
foreign award made pursuant to the Convention including by the entry of a
judgment or the making of an order
in terms of that award.
- There
is nothing in the IAA that, as a matter of law, prevents an Australian court
from directing the entry of judgment or the making
of an order in the terms of
the relevant award if there is evidence which proves that, at the time such a
judgment is entered or
such an order is made, there may be or, even, definitely
are, no assets within Australia against which execution might be levied.
- The
ordinary entitlement of a successful party in litigation to a judgment is a
fundamental entitlement and is not dependent upon
that party proving to the
satisfaction of the court that there are likely to be assets available to the
judgment creditor at any
particular time against which execution might be
levied. The litigious process which culminates in the entry of judgment or the
making of an order and the process of levying execution in order to obtain
satisfaction in respect of that judgment or order are
quite separate processes.
- A
judgment creditor is entitled to levy execution against assets which come into
the jurisdiction after the judgment is entered or
which did not even exist at
the time judgment was entered.
- In
the present case, the evidence establishes that Balaji remains the registered
holder of all of the issued capital in Booyan and
that, according to the records
maintained by ASIC in respect of Booyan, Balaji holds its shares in Booyan as
beneficial owner. Whilst
it is true that Balaji contends that the beneficial
ownership in the shares has already passed to Concast (a matter about which I
have made no finding and which may need to be determined when I come to
determine Traxys’ claim that receivers be appointed
to the shares) and
whilst it is also true that there is some evidence that might be regarded as
supporting that proposition, the
legal estate in the shares remains with Balaji.
That is a sufficient interest to support the relief claimed by Traxys even if I
were
to accept Balaji’s contentions in relation to Issue 2.
- Even
if Balaji’s contentions were to be accepted, there is a sufficient basis
in the present case for the Court to direct the
entry of an appropriate judgment
or to make an appropriate order if it is otherwise satisfied that enforcement
should not be refused
on the public policy ground.
Issue 3—Is enforcement of the Award contrary to public policy?
The Scope of the Public Policy Exception to Enforcement
- Section
8(7)(b) of the IAA provides that an enforcing court may refuse enforcement of a
foreign award on the ground that to enforce
the award would be contrary to
public policy. Section 8(7A) provides that enforcement would be contrary to
public policy if the
making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or
corruption or if a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection
with the making of the award.
- The
grounds for refusing enforcement specified in s 8(5) of the IAA reflect
commonly accepted notions of fairness. Those grounds
must be raised by the
party against whom enforcement is sought and the onus of establishing one or
more of those grounds is on that
party. Section 8(7) specifies two bases
for refusing to enforce a foreign award which are not, in terms, required to be
raised by
the party against whom enforcement is sought. In practice, of course,
it will almost always be that party who raises one or other
or both of those
matters. In order to engage s 8(7), the Court must make a finding either
that the subject matter of the foreign
award is not capable of settlement by
arbitration under the laws of the State or Territory in which the Court is
sitting and/or that
to enforce the award would be contrary to public policy.
Once one or other or both such findings are made, the Court has a discretion
to
refuse to enforce the award. The proper exercise of that discretion would
require the Court to pay due regard to the terms of
s 39(2) of the IAA and
the objects of the IAA as stated in s 2D.
- The
enforcement court may be tempted to interpret the public policy basis for
refusing to enforce a foreign award provided for in
s 8(7) of the IAA as
conferring a wide discretion upon the enforcing court to deny enforcement.
Public policy is not specifically
defined in the Convention nor is it defined in
the IAA. It is, of course, specifically mentioned in Art V(2)(b) of the
Convention
and in Art 34(2)(b) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Article V(2)(b) is obviously the progenitor of s 8(7) of the IAA.
Section 8(7) has
the potential to provide a broad loophole for refusing
enforcement (see the discussion in Moses, The Principles and Practice of
International Commercial Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2008) at
pp 218–219).
- Clearly
the pro-enforcement bias of the Convention, as reflected in the IAA, requires
that the public policy ground for refusing
enforcement not be allowed to be used
as an escape route for a defaulting award debtor. That ground should not be
made available
too readily, lest it undermine the purpose of encouraging and
facilitating the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards embodied in
the
Convention and in the IAA. As previously observed, arbitration facilitates
international trade and commerce by providing an
efficient and certain dispute
resolution process to commercial parties. If the enforcement of awards is to be
subjected to the vagaries
of the entire domestic public policy of the
enforcement jurisdiction, there is the potential to lose all of the benefits of
certainty
and efficiency that arbitration provides and which international
traders seek.
- In
Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 131; (2011) 277 ALR 415
(Uganda No 1) at [126]–[130] (pp 436–437), I
said:
- Section
8(5) of the Act does not permit a party to a foreign award to resist enforcement
of that award on such a ground. Nor is it
against public policy for a foreign
award to be enforced by this court without examining the correctness of the
reasoning or the
result reflected in the award. The whole rationale of the Act,
and thus the public policy of Australia, is to enforce such awards
wherever
possible in order to uphold contractual arrangements entered into in the course
of international trade, in order to support
certainty and finality in
international dispute resolution and in order to meet the other objects
specified in s 2D of the Act.
- In
the United States, the courts have generally regarded the public policy ground
for non-enforcement as one to be sparingly applied.
It has not been seen as
giving a wide discretion to refuse to enforce an award which otherwise meets the
definition of foreign arbitral
award under the convention.
- An
example of this approach is Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v
Société Générale De L’Industrie Du Papier
[1974] USCA2 836; 508 F 2d 969 (2d Cir 1974). In that case, at 974, the court said
that:
We conclude, therefore, that the Convention’s public policy defense should
be construed narrowly. Enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards may be denied on
this basis only where enforcement would violate the forum state’s most
basic notions of morality and
justice.
- Other
courts in the United States have held that there is a pro-enforcement bias
informing the convention: for example Karaha Bodas Co, LLC v Perusahaan
Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara [2004] USCA5 66; 364 F 3d 274 at 306 (2004)
(Karaha Bodas).
- A
more conservative approach has sometimes been taken in Australia: see for
example Resort Condominiums International Inc v Bolwell [1995] 1 Qd R 406
at 428–32; (1993) 118 ALR 655 at 677–82.
- At
[131] (pp 436–439), I referred to the decision of McDougall J in
Corvetina Technology Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd [2004] NSWSC 700; (2004) 183 FLR 317 at
[6]–[14] (pp 319–321) and at [18] (p 322). In that case,
his Honour described the discretion conferred on the Court by s
8(7)(b) of
the IAA as “wide”. His Honour also remarked that there may
be, in addition, a general discretion to refuse to enforce a foreign award.
However, his
Honour expressly refrained from expressing a concluded view on this
point. At [18] (p 322), McDougall J said:
- It
was suggested in the course of argument that if I did not accede to the
plaintiff’s notice of motion then, in substance,
it would send a warning
signal to those who wish to enforce international arbitrations in Australia.
Again, I do not agree. The very
point of provisions such as s 8(7)(b) is to
preserve to the court in which enforcement is sought, the right to apply its own
standards
of public policy in respect of the award. In some cases the inquiry
that it required will be limited and will not involve detailed
examination of
factual issues. In other cases, the inquiry may involve detailed examination of
factual issues. But I do not think
that it can be said that the court should
forfeit the exercise of the discretion, which is expressly referred to it,
simply because
of some “signal” that this might send to people who
engage in arbitrations under the Act. There is, as the cases have
recognised, a
balancing consideration. On the one hand, it is necessary to ensure that the
mechanism for enforcement of international
arbitral awards under the New York
Convention is not frustrated. But, on the other hand, it is necessary for the
court to be master
of its own processes and to apply its own public policy. The
resolution of that conflict, in my judgment, should be undertaken at
a final
hearing and not on an interlocutory application.
- At
[132]–[133] (p 439) in Uganda No 1, I observed:
- Whether
or not, in 2004, there was a general discretion in the court to refuse to
enforce a foreign award which was brought to the
court for enforcement, the
amendments effected by the 2010 Act make clear that no such discretion remains.
Section 8(7)(b) preserves
the public policy ground. However, it would be curious
if that exception were the source of some general discretion to refuse to
enforce a foreign award. While the exception in s 8(7)(b) has to be given
some room to operate, in my view, it should be narrowly
interpreted consistently
with the United States cases. The principles articulated in those cases sit more
comfortably with the purposes
of the convention and the objects of the Act. To
the extent that McDougall J might be thought to have taken a different approach,
I would respectfully disagree with him.
- The
complaint in the present case is that the assessment of general damages in the
award is excessive because the arbitrator failed
to consider the costs and
expenses that would have to be expended by UTL in generating the gross income
which he found was likely
to be earned. This is quintessentially the type of
complaint which ought not be allowed to be raised as a reason for refusing to
enforce a foreign award. The time for Hi-Tech to have addressed this matter was
during the arbitration proceedings in accordance
with the timetable laid down by
the arbitrator. It chose not to do so at that time. It cannot do so now. As the
court in Karaha Bodas also said at
306:
Erroneous legal reasoning or misapplication of law is generally not a violation
of public policy within the meaning of the New York
Convention.
- Article V(2)(b)
of the Convention makes clear that, under the Convention, it is the public
policy of the enforcement state which
matters. There is no express reference in
the Convention to any concept of international or transnational public policy.
Having
regard to s 2D and s 39(2) of the IAA, s 8(7)(b) should be
interpreted in a manner which is consistent with Art V(2)(b) of the
Convention.
For this reason, s 8(7)(b) should be interpreted as requiring
the Court to consider the public policy of Australia when the public
policy
ground of refusal is invoked by an award debtor.
- What
then is the scope of the public policy which must be considered? Is it the
entire domestic public policy of Australia or a
more refined concept? The
expression is not defined in the Convention, in the UNCITRAL Model Law or in the
IAA. Nonetheless, some
assistance as to its meaning is provided by the examples
of matters which would definitely be contrary to public policy which are
specified in s 8(7A) of the IAA. The matters covered by s 8(7A) are
matters which most fair-minded thinking persons would regard
as obvious reasons
for refusing to enforce a foreign award.
- For
reasons which I will now explain, I think that the expression “public
policy” when used in s 8(7)(b) means those elements of the public
policy of Australia which are so fundamental to our notions of justice
that the
courts of this country feel obliged to give effect to them even in respect of
claims which are based fundamentally on foreign
elements such as foreign awards
under the IAA.
- As
Justice Bokhary PJ observed in Hebei Import and Export Corporation v
Polytek Engineering Co. Ltd [1999] HKCFA 16 at [29]:
In regard to the refusal of enforcement of Convention awards on public policy
grounds, there are references in the cases and texts
to what has been called
“international public policy”. Does this mean some standard common
to all civilized nations?
Or does it mean those elements of a State’s own
public policy which are so fundamental to its notions of justice that its courts
feel obliged to apply the same not only to purely internal matters but even to
matters with a foreign element by which other States
are affected? I think that
it should be taken to mean the latter. If it were the former, it would become so
difficult of ascertainment
that a court may well feel obliged (as the Supreme
Court of India did in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd v. General Electric Co.
Yearbook Comm. Arb’n XX (1995) 681 at p.700) to abandon the search for it.
- The
text of Art V(2)(b) of the Convention makes clear that the public policy to
be applied is that of the jurisdiction in which the
award is sought to be
enforced. However, too rigid an application of the public policy of the
domestic jurisdiction runs the risk
of undermining the very purpose of the Act,
being the facilitation of enforcement and the maintenance of certainty of
foreign arbitral
awards.
- As
Bokhary PJ also said in Hebei at [27] and [28]:
- In
my view, there must be compelling reasons before enforcement of a Convention
award can be refused on public policy grounds. This
is not to say that the
reasons must be so extreme that the award falls to be cursed by bell, book and
candle. But the reasons must
go beyond the minimum which would justify setting
aside a domestic judgment or award. A point to similar effect was made in a
comparable
context by the United States Supreme Court in Mitsubishi Motors
Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc. [1985] USSC 203; 473 US 614 (1985). There the question
was whether an antitrust claim was to be referred to arbitration outside the
United States. In holding
that it was, the majority said this (at
p.629):
“... concerns of international comity, respect for the capacities of
foreign and transnational tribunals, and sensitivity to
the need of the
international commercial system for predictability in the resolution of disputes
require that we enforce the parties’
agreement, even assuming that a
contrary result would be forthcoming in a domestic
context.”
The considerable strength of this demand for comity is apparent from what it was
able to overcome, namely the advantages of dealing
with antitrust claims by way
of litigation in the United States rather than by way of arbitration elsewhere.
These advantages are
detailed in the dissenting judgment of the minority.
- When
a number of States enter into a treaty to enforce each other's arbitral awards,
it stands to reason that they would do so in
the realization that they, or some
of them, will very likely have very different outlooks in regard to internal
matters. And they
would hardly intend, when entering into the treaty or later
when incorporating it into their domestic law, that these differences
should be
allowed to operate so as to undermine the broad uniformity which must be the
obvious aim of such a treaty and the domestic
laws incorporating it.
- The
leading decision in the US on the public policy defence in Art V of the
Convention is Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co, Inc v
Société Générale De L’Industrie Du Papier
(RAKTA) [1974] USCA2 836; 508 F 2d 969 (2d Cir 1974). In that case, the US Second Circuit
Court of Appeals addressed the scope of the defence in relation to an
application
to enforce an arbitration award between a US company contracted to
perform work in Egypt and an Egyptian corporation, at a time when
US/Egyptian
political relations had broken down as a result of the Arab-Israeli 6-day war.
The US Court held that public policy
must be narrowly construed, in keeping with
the pro-enforcement purpose of the Convention. In an oft-cited passage, the
Court held
(at 974) that the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards should only
be refused where enforcement would “violate the forum state’s
most basic notions of morality and justice”. The Court went on to say
(at 974):
In equating “national” policy with United States
“public” policy, the appellant quite plainly misses the
mark. To
read the public policy defense as a parochial device protective of national
political interests would seriously undermine
the Convention’s utility.
This provision was not meant to enshrine the vagaries of international politics
under the rubric
of “public policy.” Rather, a circumscribed public
policy doctrine was contemplated by the Convention’s framers
and every
indication is that the United States, in acceding to the Convention, meant to
subscribe to this supranational emphasis.
Cf. Scherk v Alberto-Culver
Co., [1974] USSC 173; 417 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974). (Moreover, the facts
here fail to demonstrate that considered government policy forbids completion of
the contract itself
by a private party.)
To deny enforcement of this award largely because of the United States’
falling out with Egypt in recent years would mean converting
a defense intended
to be of narrow scope into a major loophole in the Convention’s mechanism
for enforcement. We have little
hesitation, therefore, in disallowing
Overseas’ proposed public policy defense.
- The
Court in Parsons applied the principle that the relevant public policy to
be applied is that of the enforcement state. However, the Court in
Parsons went on to explain that the public policy to be applied is not
the entirety of the public policy of the domestic jurisdiction. Enforcement
is
only to be refused on the basis that the “most basic notions of
morality and justice” have been violated.
- In
a later case, MGM Productions Group Inc v Aeroflot Russian Airlines (2004
WL 234871), the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals took the same approach as it
had done in Parsons. In MGM Productions Group Inc, the Court
remarked that enforcing the foreign award in that case would not contravene US
public policy. The issue in that case
was whether the relevant award should not
be enforced because it compensated the claimant for Aeroflot’s
non-performance of
a contract some terms of which constituted violations of the
US Iranian Transactions Regulations adopted pursuant to Executive Orders
issued
by the President of the United States.
- In
Hebei, when refusing to grant relief to a defendant on public policy
grounds, Bokhary PJ said (at [31]) that:
Before a Convention jurisdiction can, in keeping with its being a party to the
Convention, refuse enforcement of a Convention award
on public policy grounds,
the award must be so fundamentally offensive to that jurisdiction's notions of
justice that, despite its
being a party to the Convention, it cannot reasonably
be expected to overlook the objection.
- Where
the public policy to be applied is defined by such narrow parameters, it may
well be the case, as Sir Anthony Mason NPJ observed
in Hebei that
the relevant public policy of the enforcement state is so widely accepted across
civilised nations that it can, in a sense, be
described as
“international public policy”. At [98]–[99], Sir
Anthony Mason said:
- In
some decisions, notably of courts in civil law jurisdictions, public policy has
been equated to international public policy. As
already mentioned,
Article V.2(b) specifically refers to the public policy of the forum. No
doubt, in many instances, the relevant
public policy of the forum
coincides with the public policy of so many other countries that the relevant
public policy is accurately
described as international public policy. Even in
such a case, if the ground is made out, it is because the enforcement of the
award
is contrary to the public policy of the forum (A.J. van den Berg, The New
York Convention of 1958, page 298).
- However,
the object of the Convention was to encourage the recognition and enforcement of
commercial arbitration agreements in international
contracts and to unify the
standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are
enforced (Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. [1974] USSC 173; (1974) 417 U.S. 506; Imperial
Ethiopian Government v. Barich-Foster Corp. [1976] USCA5 1064; (1976) 535 F. 2d 334 at 335). In
order to ensure the attainment of that object without excessive intervention on
the part of courts of enforcement, the
provisions of Article V, notably Article
V.2(b) relating to public policy, have been given a narrow construction. It has
been generally
accepted that the expression “contrary to the public policy
of that country” in Article V.2(b) means “contrary
to the
fundamental conceptions of morality and justice” of the forum. (Parsons
and Whittemore Overseas Co. Inc v Societe General de Industrie du Papier
(Rakta) [1974] USCA2 836; (1974) 508 F. 2d 969 at 974 (where the Convention expression was
equated to “the forum’s most basic notions of morality and
justice”);
see A.J. van den Berg, The New York Convention of 1958, page
376; see also Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v General Electric Co. (Yearbook
Comm. Arb’n. XX (1995) page 681 at pages 697–702)).
- Thus,
in my view, the scope of the public policy ground of refusal is that the public
policy to be applied is that of the jurisdiction
in which enforcement is sought,
but it is only those aspects of public policy that go to the fundamental, core
questions of morality
and justice in that jurisdiction which enliven this
particular statutory exception to enforcement. The public policy ground does
not reserve to the enforcement court a broad discretion and should not be seen
as a catch-all defence of last resort. It should
not be used to give effect to
parochial and idiosyncratic tendencies of the courts of the enforcement state.
This view is consistent
with the language of s 8(7), the terms of
s 8(7A), the text of Art V(2) of the Convention, the fundamental
objects of the Convention
and the objects of the IAA. This approach also
ensures that due respect is given to Convention-based awards as an aspect of
international
comity in our interconnected and globalised world which, after
all, are the product of freely negotiated arbitration agreements entered
into
between relatively sophisticated parties.
Balaji’s Submissions
- Balaji
submitted that:
(a) It is incumbent upon Traxys to demonstrate that
its application has some utility. It has failed to demonstrate that Balaji has
any assets in Australia. Balaji sold the shares on 16 July 2011. The
beneficial interest in the shares passed to Concast on that
date and it now has
the right to compel Balaji to deliver a transfer of the shares in registrable
form in accordance with the agreement
for sale and purchase of shares which
Balaji asserts was executed by Balaji and Concast on or about 16 July 2011.
Traxys’ application
is therefore futile and enforcement should be refused
on the ground that it is against the public policy of Australia within the
meaning of s 8(7) of the IAA to allow a party to commence and to maintain a
futile application to enforce a foreign award.
(b) It is also against the public policy of Australia within the meaning of
s 8(7) in the IAA for this Court to entertain an application
for
enforcement of the Award in circumstances where there is an unresolved
application to set aside the Award in India and an interim
injunction in place
issued ex parte by the Indian High Court against Traxys in aid of
Balaji’s appeal from the District Court judge in India who refused to stay
the operation of the Award, which injunction, according to its terms, restrains
Traxys from seeking to enforce the Award. This interim
injunction was in place
and known to Traxys to be in place prior to 2 September 2011 when the
present proceeding was commenced.
(c) The commencement and maintenance of this proceeding is a breach of the
interim injunction granted by the Indian High Court and
constitutes a serious
contempt of that Court. As a matter of comity, enforcement should be refused.
It is contrary to public policy
to permit a multiplicity of actions where the
Award is subject to challenge in the award debtor’s country of origin, a
place
where it has assets. This Court should not permit the order of the Indian
High Court to be ignored.
Traxys’ Submissions
- Traxys
submitted that:
(a) Traxys is entitled to enforce the Award in any
Convention country in which it chooses to enforce it. That is the whole
fundamental
point of the Convention.
(b) The grounds under the IAA upon which this Court may decline to enforce
the Award are limited. They are those grounds specified
in s 8(5) and
s 8(7) of the IAA.
(c) Balaji has no proper basis upon which it can seek to set aside the Award
in India. It can only do so in England which was the
seat of the arbitration
and the place where the Award was made. An award debtor cannot go to the courts
of a country of its choosing
(in this case, India) and seek to undermine the
Award and the objects of the IAA and the Convention.
(d) Balaji sought an injunction in the Indian High Court at a time when it
was well aware of the proceedings brought by Traxys in
the English Commercial
Court and of the anti-suit injunction granted by that Court. On 30 August
2011, the English Commercial Court
granted Traxys permission to enforce the
Award and to seek freezing orders in Australia. Traxys is not guilty of
contempt of the
Indian High Court. Nonetheless, the sequence of events is
relevant when the Court comes to consider Balaji’s contention that
enforcing the Award would be against public policy.
Decision
- At
[79]–[86] above, I have explained why, as a matter of law, Traxys is not
obliged, as a condition of being granted any relief,
to prove that Balaji has
assets in Australia. For similar reasons, it is not contrary to the public
policy of Australia to direct
the entry of judgment or to make an order in terms
of a foreign award in the absence of proof that the award debtor has assets in
Australia nor is it against the public policy of Australia to take those steps
in the face of evidence which suggests or even proves
that the award debtor has
no assets here. Under the IAA, the award creditor is entitled to have a
judgment unless the Court is satisfied
that enforcement should be refused on one
of the grounds specified in s 8(5) and s 8(7) of the IAA. I therefore
reject Balaji’s
first public policy argument.
- The
second and third bases upon which Balaji invokes s 8(7) are summarised at
[106] above (sub-pars (b) and (c)). Balaji submitted
that this Court
should not ignore the proceedings in India and should pay due respect to the
interim injunction granted by the Indian
High Court.
- The
following matters are relevant to the Court’s consideration of those
arguments:
(a) The coke contract between the parties obliged them to
refer disputes to arbitration pursuant to the LCIA Rules. Traxys did so
and no
point was taken by Balaji that the arbitrators did not have the power to conduct
the arbitration and to make the Award.
(b) The LCIA Rules made the Award final and binding upon the parties.
(c) Balaji participated fully in the arbitration and had every opportunity to
present its case in the arbitration.
(d) Balaji breached its contract when it commenced the Indian District Court
proceedings. It was bound under its contract with Traxys
and by the LCIA Rules
to accept the Award as final and binding. In any event, s 8(1) of the IAA
made the Award final and binding,
at least for the purpose of enforcing the
Award in Australia.
(e) The Courts of India do not have power to set aside the Award, it being a
foreign award made under the Convention. India is a
signatory to the
Convention. The Indian Arbitration Act does not bestow such a power on Courts
and the Convention itself does not
contemplate that, in the circumstances of the
present case, the Indian Courts would be authorised to entertain such an
application.
The Convention and the Indian Arbitration Act both provide that a
foreign award can only be suspended or set aside by a competent
authority of the
country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. In the
present case, because the Award was made
in England under the laws of England,
it can only be set aside by an appropriate Court in England. Balaji has not
made an application
to any English Court to set aside the Award.
(f) The English Commercial Court has given effect to the Award.
(g) The English Commercial Court granted an anti-suit injunction against
Balaji on 26 July 2011. This was after the Indian District
Court Judge had
refused Balaji’s application for a stay of enforcement of the Award and
before the Indian High Court granted
the ex parte interim injunction
restraining Traxys from seeking to enforce the Award. Balaji sought and
obtained that interim injunction in breach
of the anti-suit injunction granted
by the English commercial Court. The injunction was granted in aid of an appeal
which appears
to me to be hopeless. As far as I am aware, the Indian High Court
did not give any reasons for granting the injunction. Whilst
it is always
possible that the Indian High Court may not agree with my assessment of
Balaji’s appeal, it is incumbent upon
me to form some view of
Balaji’s prospects in its appeal in order to determine what weight (if
any) in the present application
I should give to the fact that there is an
appeal on foot in India and the fact that there is an interim injunction in
place. In
my view, I should give no weight to these circumstances.
(h) The English Commercial Court authorised Traxys to seek freezing orders in
Australia.
(i) At all times since the Award was made, Traxys has had the right to seek
to enforce the Award in any one or more Convention countries.
It was, and is,
entitled to choose where and when it will seek to enforce the Award. Subject to
the limited grounds available under
the Convention for refusing to enforce a
foreign award, Convention countries are bound to enforce the Award.
- It
seems to me when the above matters are considered and the context in which
Traxys’ enforcement actions in Australia is understood,
the conduct of
Balaji in instituting and maintaining the proceedings in India which it
commenced in early July 2011 amounts to nothing
more than a tactic designed to
out-manoeuvre Traxys and to avoid its obligations under the Award, obligations
which themselves arose
out of the contract which it freely made with Traxys in
2009. In those circumstances, I am not at all persuaded that the public
policy
of Australia requires this Court to decline to enforce the Award simply because
Balaji has pursued an appeal in India from
an unfavourable decision at first
instance and has somehow convinced the Indian High Court to grant an ex
parte interim injunction against Traxys. These factors do not engage the
core of morals and justice in Australia so as to enliven the
discretion to
refuse to enforce the Award.
- This
Court has a duty to uphold the laws of Australia when asked to do so. In the
circumstances of this case, that duty requires
that I accede to Traxys’
present application notwithstanding that it has sought the relief which it seeks
in apparent breach
of the ex parte interim injunction granted by the
Indian High Court on 29 July 2011.
CONCLUSION
- For
all of the above reasons, I will make the declaration sought by Traxys. I also
propose to direct the entry of a judgment in
favour of Traxys against Balaji for
all sums due under the Award plus interest in accordance with the
arbitrators’ decision
in relation to interest (as to which see [15] above
and [143] and [152] of the Award). The judgment which I propose to give in
favour
of Traxys should probably comprise various components expressed in US
dollars, Euros and Great British pounds in the fashion claimed
by Traxys in
par 2 of its Amended Originating Application. Alternatively, those amounts
may be converted into Australian dollars.
At the moment, I consider that Balaji
should also pay pre-judgment interest pursuant to s 51A of the Federal
Court Act or pursuant
to the contract between the parties on the amounts awarded
to it on account of the costs of the arbitration and the costs of the
reference.
The parties will also need to consider the basis upon which post-judgment
interest should be calculated.
- In
order to allow the parties time to confer, to perform the necessary calculations
and to decide whether there needs to be argument
directed to the question of
interest, I will direct the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order in which
final orders to be made
are set out.
- In
addition, because the existing freezing orders initially made by this Court on
2 September 2011 are expressed to be operative
only up to the delivery of
judgment, in order to avoid any suggestion that those orders will cease to be
operative as soon as I publish
these Reasons for Judgment and make any orders, I
intend to vary those freezing orders so as to ensure that they remain in place
until further order.
- The
parties will also need to incorporate in their Short Minutes of Order an
appropriate order for the separate trial of the issues
determined by these
Reasons for Judgment as well as directions for the future conduct of the
proceeding.
- Traxys
has had complete success so far in this proceeding. I see no reason why costs
should not follow the event. The fact that
Traxys may not succeed in its claim
to have receivers appointed to the shares is no reason to deny to it the costs
of litigating
its claim for a declaration and for a money judgment. The Short
Minutes of Order to be furnished by the parties should contain an
order that
Balaji pay Traxys’ costs of and incidental to the claims for relief made
by it in pars 1 and 2 of its Amended Originating
Application.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and
seventeen (117) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment
herein
of the Honourable Justice Foster.
|
Associate:
Dated: 23 March 2012
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/276.html