|
Summary
|
The parties requested rulings on questions raised in their agreed statement of position, including whether an arbitral clause contained in a charterparty could constitute an “arbitration agreement” for the purposes of s 3(1) of the Act (defining that term as meaning an agreement in writing of the kind referred to by Article II(1) NYC) and, if so, whether an award arising out of an arbitration conducted pursuant to that agreement was enforceable pursuant to s 8(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (“the Act”) (providing for the enforcement of NYC awards, as defined by the Act, in a court of a State or Territory as if the award were a judgment or order of that court). In particular, the parties requested a ruling on the question whether the arbitral clause could be enforced notwithstanding s 11 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth) (“COGSA”), insofar as the charterparty could be construed as a “sea carriage document” within the meaning of s 11(1)(a) of COGSA, the purpose of which was to preclude or limit the jurisdiction of Australian courts, as prohibited by s 11(2) of COGSA.
The Court held that the questions should be answered in the affirmative. In so ruling, it found that the charterparty was an “agreement in writing” of the kind referred to in Article II(1) NYC.
|
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your searchAustralia / 25 August 2011 / Australia, Supreme Court of South Australia / Jebsens International (Australia) Pty Ltd v. Interfert Australia Pty Ltd / SCCIV-10-1589
