Australia / 23 January 2012 / Australia, Federal Court of Australia / Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v. TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd / VID 218 of 2011; VID 224 of 2011; VID 317 of 2011
Country | Australia |
Court | Australia, Federal Court of Australia |
Date | 23 January 2012 |
Parties | Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v. TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd |
Case number | VID 218 of 2011; VID 224 of 2011; VID 317 of 2011 |
Source |
[2012] FCA 21, online: AustLII |
Languages | English |
Summary | Castel Electronics Pty Ltd (“Castel”), an Australian company, and TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd (“TCL”), a Chinese company, entered into a contract granting Castel the exclusive right to sell TCL-brand air conditioners in Australia. A dispute arose and Castel invoked an arbitral clause contained in the contract providing for arbitration in Australia. The tribunal ruled in favour of Castel and, by a separate award, awarded costs against TCL. Castel sought enforcement of the awards in the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (“the Act”) (providing for the enforcement in the Federal Court of NYC awards, as defined by the Act, as if the award were a judgment or order of that court). TCL opposed the application on the basis that it was defective and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it under the Act insofar as, inter alia, it was a domestic award. The Federal Court held that it had jurisdiction to enforce the awards, and deferred for later consideration the balance of the application. In so finding, it reasoned that for the purposes of the Act, the term “foreign award” means an award rendered by an arbitral tribunal in an international commercial arbitration to which the Court determined the NYC applied. The Court therefore concluded that the fact that the award was rendered in Australia did not deprive it of its character as a “foreign award”. |
affirmed by : | |
see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
![]() Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |