Summary

ARBITRATION - ex parte application for enforcement of foreign arbitral award under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) - where requirements satisfied and no reason why award should not be enforced - two stage process - judgment entered but stayed pending determination of any challenge by the respondent.

The applicant is Shanghai Qifan Cable Co. Ltd, a Chinese company that manufactures cables. It applied ex parte to enforce a foreign arbitral award under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA) against the respondent, Aryam Australia Pty Ltd, an Australian company engaging in business in the cable industry.

The foreign award that the applicant sought to enforce is an award issued by Mr Kevin Lim as sole arbitrator on 23 October 2025 in Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) arbitration no. 557 of 2024. The award, which was made in Singapore, was designated as award no. 161 of 2025 in SIAC’s registry of awards.

After the application was heard on 11 March 2026, I was satisfied of all but one of the relevant requirements for the ex parte enforcement of the award under s 8(3) - enforcement without notice being sanctioned by Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR) r 28.44(3). The outstanding matter was that there was, at the time of the hearing, insufficient evidence before me to be satisfied that the respondent had been given notice of the award and, if so, when that had occurred. The applicant was given the opportunity to adduce further evidence to satisfy me of those matters. The applicant did so on 19 March 2026 by tendering an email dated 23 October 2025 from SIAC to the parties to the arbitration attaching the award, upon which I made orders enforcing the award but staying the orders until the return date (as in Ripple Markets APAC Pte Ltd v EzyRemit Worldwide Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1551 (Ripple Markets) at [16]). These are my reasons for making those orders.