Australia has a federal constitution, with responsibility for domestic

arbitrations being vested in the states, and international arbitration falling

within the purview of the Commonwealth. The legislation governing

international arbitrations—the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth)

(“IAA”)—has recently been updated, and incorporates the 2006 version

of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Similarly, domestic arbitration is

governed by a largely uniform set of state acts—each entitled

Commercial Arbitration Act (“CAA”)1—which enact the 2006

UNCITRAL Model Law. In the foregoing, references will hence often

be made to provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law, as it has the same

numbering system as both the CAA and IAA, and such references should

be taken to refer to both domestic and international arbitration in

Australia unless otherwise indicated.

 

The adoption of the Model Law constituted a radical overhaul of

both the CAAs and IAA. These amendments were recent, and therefore

both sets of legislation are relatively untested. Practitioners in Australia

have relied upon overseas Model Law decisions as guidance to how the

new provisions operate, and it can be expected that courts will do the

same as issues come before them.

 

Both the CAAs and the IAA allow the parties to choose the court

that will have jurisdiction over any issues relating to the arbitration.2

However, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the CAAs

provide that the relevant Supreme Court will have jurisdiction, and the

IAA provides that either the Supreme Court of the state in which the

arbitration is seated or the Federal Court will have jurisdiction. Finally,