Error: Can't connect Warning: mysqli_query() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli, null given in /home/customer/www/hsfnotes.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/hsfnotes/template-parts/tpl_filters.php on line 186
Warning: mysqli_fetch_assoc() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, null given in /home/customer/www/hsfnotes.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/hsfnotes/template-parts/tpl_filters.php on line 187
In a recent post, we considered the careful and considered approach taken by Australian courts in striking the balance between a pro-enforcement stance and critical due process safeguards when enforcing foreign arbitral awards.
In Beijing Jishi Venture Capital Fund (Limited Partnership) v Liu [2021] FCA 477, the Federal Court of Australia maintained this balance by declining to enforce an award against an award debtor who had not been served in accordance with the arbitration agreement or the chosen institutional rules, and therefore had not been given proper notice of the arbitration. Read more
On 2 December 2021 the Australian Parliament passed the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 (Bill) introducing a new thematic sanctions regime to the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Act) and Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (Regulations). Read more
In the recent case of EBJ21 v EB021 [2021] FCA 1406 award creditors sought recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award that had already been paid in time and in full. The award debtors resisted the application arguing that it was an improper attempt to circumvent the agreed upon confidentiality arrangement by bringing the dispute into the public arena of a court proceeding. The Federal Court of Australia agreed. Read more
By Leon Chung, Christine Wong and Shannan Casey On 2 December 2021 the Australian Parliament passed the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 (Bill) introducing a new thematic sanctions regime to the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Act) and Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (Regulations). Read more
It has been an active 12 months in the climate change litigation space, both in Australia and internationally. The political and legal landscape is rapidly evolving and the need to keep pace with these developments is presenting companies with new strategic challenges.
In this update, we provide a summary of three recent key developments in climate change litigation in Australia and New Zealand. Read more
On 30 September 2021, the Department of Treasury opened consultation on new laws which, if enacted in their proposed form, will introduce new hurdles for litigation funders intended to ensure fairer returns for group members in future funded class actions. Read more
The Federal Court of Australia has recognised and enforced two awards issued in investor-state arbitrations conducted under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) (ICSID case numbers ARB/13/31 and ARB/13/36). The Federal Court decision, Eiser Infrastructure Limited v Kingdom of Spain [2020] FCA 157 (Eiser), directly considers whether foreign states are immune from enforcement of an ICSID award in Australia. Read more
The recent decision of Justice Bromberg in Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 found that a novel duty of care is owed by the Minister for the Environment to Australian children who might suffer potential “catastrophic harm” from the climate change implications of approving the extension to the Vickery coal mine in New South Wales.
A recent case of the Federal Court of Australia affirms the Australian courts’ pro-enforcement approach to foreign arbitral awards under the regime of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention). Read more
