Hyundai Engineering & Steel Industries Co Ltd v Two Ways Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1551

Hyundai Engineering & Steel Industries Co Ltd v Two Ways Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1551

The Federal Court must enforce the Singapore arbitral award as a judgment of the court under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). The court has no jurisdiction to reserve liberty to apply to vary or alter orders in the event the award is varied or set aside by the Singapore High Court, as this would be beyond its powers and contrary to principles of finality. The supplementary orders sought by the administrators are not within the power of the court. Judgment is entered for the applicant in the terms of the award.

Parties
Applicant: Hyundai Engineering & Steel Industries Co Ltd; Respondent: Two Ways Constructions Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Originating Application (enforcement of Arbitral Award) / Final Judgment, Post Hearing
Outcome
Application by applicant to enforce Singapore award granted; enforcement and orders for judgment in terms of the award; orders sought by administrators refused
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, International Arbitration, Voluntary Administration, Security for Award, Corporate Insolvency
Arbitration Commercial Law Corporations Law Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards International Arbitration Voluntary Administration Security for Award Corporate Insolvency

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hyundai Engineering & Steel Industries Co Ltd

Applicant

Two Ways Constructions Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application (enforcement of Arbitral Award) / Final Judgment, Post Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether international arbitral award obtained in Singapore should be enforced as a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the court should make supplemental or conditional orders to vary its judgment if the award is subsequently varied or set aside by the Singapore High Court
  3. 3 Whether administrators are entitled to orders restricting enforcement of judgment without further leave

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court must enforce the Singapore arbitral award as a judgment of the court under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). The court has no jurisdiction to reserve liberty to apply to vary or alter orders in the event the award is varied or set aside by the Singapore High Court, as this would be beyond its powers and contrary to principles of finality. The supplementary orders sought by the administrators are not within the power of the court. Judgment is entered for the applicant in the terms of the award.

Court Disposition

Application by applicant to enforce Singapore award granted; enforcement and orders for judgment in terms of the award; orders sought by administrators refused

Orders

  • The final award dated 9 March 2018 of Mr Alvin Yeo SC (sole arbitrator) as detailed, be enforced as a judgment of this court under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).
  • Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent in terms of the award, including (a) extensions of time declarations; (b) respondent to pay AUD 5,584,148.39 (principal, pre-award interest and further pre-award interest); (c) respondent to pay USD 1,502,958.86 in arbitration costs; (d)...