Federal Court of Australia Enforces Foreign Arbitral Award of $40 Million

In Guoao Holding Group Co Ltd v Xue (No 2) [2022] FCA 1584, the Federal Court of Australia granted enforcement in Australia of a foreign arbitral award issued in China, and dismissed objections that enforcement would be contrary to Australian public policy.
Author(s): Sam Dorne
A traditional Chinese pavilion with intricate details and a tiled roof stands in the foreground. In the background, a modern city skyline is visible under a partially cloudy blue sky. Lush greenery surrounds the pavilion, blending nature with architecture.

The facts

The parties to the dispute were a Chinese construction Company (Guoao Group) and a Chinese national (Ms Xue). Ms Xue had significant business interests in China, but resided in Australia. The parties’ dispute arose in relation to their joint venture and funding agreements for the development and construction of an aged care village in China. The joint venture was arranged through a new joint venture company with shareholdings allocated to Ms Xue and related entities, as well as a 51% shareholding to Guoao Group. Through a further agreement Guouo Group had an approximate 25% interest in the overall project.

The parties referred their dispute to the Beijing Arbitration Commission. The joint venture company was not a party to the arbitration.The arbitral tribunal found in favour of Guoao Group and ordered Ms Xue to pay Gouao Group over AUD40 million (being payment for the shares in the joint venture entity and shareholder loans by Guoao Group) without transferring back to Ms Xue the shares in the joint venture entity.

Ms Xue made a number of unsuccessful challenges to the award in the Chinese courts. Guoao Group successfully enforced and recovered some of the award debt in China against Ms Xue’s assets. However, there were insufficient assets for full recovery.  

Guoao Group applied to the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) to enforce the remainder of the award in Australia pursuant to section 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (IAA). Ms Xue sought to oppose Guoao’s enforcement application by invoking section 8(7)(b) of the IAA – this provides that the court may refuse to enforce a foreign award if it finds that enforcing it would be contrary to Australian public policy. 

A bronze balance scale and a wooden gavel are placed on a wooden surface. Two closed black binders are situated in the background. The scene suggests a legal or judicial context.

The issues

The main issue that the FCA had to decide was whether, in respect of the arguments brought forward by Ms Xue, enforcing the foreign tribunal’s award would be manifestly unfair and contrary to Australian public policy, with the result that the FCA should exercise its discretion not to enforce it.

Ms Xue argued that enforcement would be contrary to public policy because of procedural unfairness in the tribunal’s award.[1] In particular, she argued that the award produced real unfairness because it rescinded (or cancelled) the parties’ original disputed contract without an order that the parties were to be restored to their pre-contractual positions, effectively allowing Guoao Group double recovery. This was essentially the same argument that Ms Xue had unsuccessfully raised in the Chinese courts to try to challenge enforcement of the award in China. 

A construction site under a clear blue sky, featuring a partially built multi-story building with scaffolding and cranes. The bright yellow construction crane towers over the structure, while another crane is visible in the background.

The decision

The FCA rejected Ms Xue’s arguments and made orders for the enforcement of the award. 

The FCA held that:[2] 

Ms Xue’s complaints about the award do not rise to the level of the award being contrary to the fundamental norms of justice and fairness in Australia within the context of international commercial arbitration such as to enliven the public policy ground for resisting enforcement. 

It noted that Ms Xue had unsuccessfully raised the same arguments regarding procedural unfairness in the Chinese courts. There was also an ability in the Chinese courts for Ms Xue to seek re-conveyance (restitution or return) of the shares in the joint venture company in question, so as to prevent double recovery. She had not exercised her rights in this regard. In the FCA, Guoao Group adduced expert evidence on the point.[3] That there was a court of competent jurisdiction to do this in China was a factor in negating Ms Xue’s public policy arguments.[4]

The FCA recognised the importance of harmony in the recognition of awards made under a standardised rules-based international system. It found that to circumvent another jurisdiction’s decisions, the foreign award would have to be so fundamentally offensive to that jurisdiction’s notions of justice that, despite its being a party to the [New York] Convention, it could not reasonably be expected to overlook the objection.[5]

Three people are seated at a conference table in an office, focusing on a laptop screen. A woman and two men appear to be engaged in a discussion. Large windows behind them allow natural light into the room, and the table is mostly clear except for a few items.

In this case, the FCA found that that threshold had not been met and there were no compelling reasons why the award should not be enforced in Australia. 

Conclusion

The FCA’s decision reinforces the high threshold for refusing to enforce a foreign arbitral award in Australia. Refusal on the basis that enforcement would be contrary to Australian public policy (under section 8(7)(b) of the IAA) is very narrow in scope and limited to breaches of the most basic fundamental principles of morality and justice, recognising the context of international commercial arbitration. In this case there were processes of the law still available to Ms Xue in China to ensure an equitable outcome. 

The door is left ajar for a finding that double-recovery will be a basis to refuse enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, (on public policy grounds under the IAA) as this was implicit in the FCA’s reasoning in this complex case. 

References

[1] Ms Xue also unsuccessfully raised a number of other arguments about the translation, certification and authentication of the foreign award. 

[2] Guoao Holding Group Co Ltd v Xue (No 2) [2022] FCA 1584 at [35].

[3] Guoao, above n 2, at [41].

[4] Gutnick v Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd [2016] VSCA 5, 49 VR 732.

[5] Guoao, above n 2, at [33].

Other resources you might like

If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.

A nighttime view of the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben in London, illuminated by lights, with the River Thames in the foreground. The sky has a gradient from blue to twilight with some scattered clouds. The Union Jack flag is flying atop the building.
Arbitration, Mediation

Arbitration and Mediation of Disputes Involving Trusts Get the Green Light in New Zealand

In a watershed moment on Wednesday of this week, the New Zealand Parliament passed the Trusts Bill which contains unique and important provisions that expressly provide for arbitration and mediation of internal and external disputes involving trusts, including for court ordered arbitration or mediation for internal matters but with some added protections.
Learn more
A woman in a black blazer is sitting at a desk in an office, examining documents. The desk is equipped with a laptop, clipboard, smartphone, and various office supplies. A large plant and shelves with binders are visible in the background.
Arbitration

LinkedIn Lips Sink Ships: Singapore Court of Appeal finds India had already posted into the public domain

In a recent decision, The Republic of India v Deutsche Telkom AG [2023] SGCA(I) 4, the Singapore Court of Appeal helps clarify the circumstances where the amended privacy provisions of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act may not apply
Learn more
A scattered pile of US one-dollar bills, reminiscent of equitable compensation allowed for breach of an arbitration clause by a third party. The notes, featuring the portrait of George Washington, are overlapping each other and slightly crumpled, creating a textured surface with varying shades of green and white.
Arbitration

Equitable compensation allowed for breach of arbitration clause by a third party

The English High Court was asked whether a third party which derived rights from a contract, and failed to comply with the contract’s arbitration clause, may be held liable for equitable compensation – the High Court said yes. [1] This important decision establishes for the first time, that a party which derives rights from a contract, such as a subrogated insurer or assignee, may be held liable to pay equitable compensation where it brings a claim in a foreign jurisdiction contrary to the contractual forum clause.

The decision confirmed that:

  1. a third party which received the benefit of a contract containing an arbitration clause, must adhere to the provisions of the arbitration clause and may not act outside its scope;
  2. a party to that contract which is forced to defend proceedings brought in breach of the arbitration clause, is now entitled to compensation without having to apply for declaratory relief; and
  3. group companies which have had to defend themselves against proceedings brought in breach of the arbitration clause, may recover wasted costs in the absence of available remedies
Learn more

Get in touch

Contact our team today to see how we can help

Contact us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.