Australia / 10 June 1999 / Australia, Supreme Court of New South Wales / Hallen v. Angledal / 50055 of 1999
| Country | Australia |
| Court | Australia, Supreme Court of New South Wales |
| Date | 10 June 1999 |
| Parties | Hallen v. Angledal |
| Case number | 50055 of 1999 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | VI |
| Source |
[1999] NSWSC 552, online: AustLII |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | In February 1993, the parties executed a share transfer agreement. A dispute arose, which was submitted to arbitration in Stockholm, Sweden, in accordance with an arbitral clause contained in that agreement. The tribunal found in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought enforcement of the award in the Supreme Court of New South Wales 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). The defendants requested an adjournment under s 8(8) of the Act (implementing Article VI NYC), pending determination of Swedish court proceedings which it claimed to have instituted seeking to have the award set aside. The plaintiffs objected on the basis, inter alia, that there was no evidence that the Swedish court to which the application had been made was “a competent authority” for the purposes of s 8(8), or that the application had been made within any applicable time limitation; moreover, the defendants had not offered any evidence as to when the application would be heard. The Supreme Court accepted the plaintiffs’ submissions and refused the request for an adjournment. In so ruling, it noted that while s 8(8) vests the Court with a general discretion, it did not authorise the Court to grant an adjournment merely because an application in relation to the award had been brought in the country in which the award was rendered, without more. In the present case, the Court concluded that the defendants had not established that the existence of the Swedish proceedings could or should cause it to grant the adjournment sought either as a matter of fact or discretion. |
| see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
