1974年国际仲裁法修正案(Cth)

2018年10月26日，《2018年民法和司法立法修正案》(以下简称《修正案》)生效，对《1974年国际仲裁法》(以下简称《国际仲裁法》)进行了一系列重要修改。主要的修改概述如下：

1. 执行外国裁决的程序要求

《修正案》明确指出，根据国际仲裁法第8(1)条和第8(5)(f)条规定，外国裁决对“仲裁裁决”双方均具有约束力，而非对“仲裁协议”双方具有约束力。

这一修改可溯及至修正法案生效之前的仲裁程序，解决了判例法中涉及到的国际仲裁法第9(1)条关于在澳大利亚执行外国裁决的程序要求的不确定性问题。

根据国际仲裁法第8(1)条的修正案前言(即，外国裁决对仲裁协议的各方具有约束力)，有理由认为获得裁决支持的一方须在外国裁决执行程序中证明裁决的被执行人是仲裁协议的一方。随后官方认为根据国际仲裁法第9(1)条的规定，仲裁裁决债权人只需向法院提交外国仲裁裁决和作为仲裁裁决所依据的仲裁协议对被执行人具有约束力，裁决债务人则需举证证明自己不受仲裁协议的约束。

《修正案》表明了澳大利亚将采取与新加坡、香港和英国一致的做法，采取后一种办法。

2. 管辖法院

《修正案》明确澳大利亚联邦法院以及各州和区域最高法院为主管法院，根据国际仲裁法承认和执行临时措施和裁决以及协助取证。

仅适用2018年10月26日后开始的仲裁程序，解决了在Castel电子有限公司诉TCL空调有限公司(2012)201FCR 209案中提出的问题，即根据按照国际仲裁法规定，按照联合国示范法进行的国际商事仲裁做出的国内裁决的执行，联邦法院是否具有管辖权。

此案中，该裁决的被执行人辩称，国际仲裁法第ss8(2)和(3)条明确授予了联邦法院、州法院和地域法院执行外国裁决的管辖权，没有授予澳大利亚任何法院执行根据示范法作出的裁决，在此基础上，裁决的被执行人辩称，联邦法院没有执行裁决的管辖权。Murphy法官认为国内作出的示范法裁决可由联邦法院根据1903年《司法法》(Cth)第39B(1A)(c)条中“根据议会制定的法律产生的任何事项”(即国际仲裁法)的原管辖权强制执行，从而驳回了这一意见。

 根据《修正案》，明确地授权联邦法院在执行外国裁决、在澳大利亚作出的示范法裁决和临时措施，以及协助取证方面作为管辖法院。

3. 投资者诉东道国仲裁保密例外

国际仲裁法保密条款已经修改，以呼应澳大利亚签署的联合国公约中关于基于条约投资者诉东道国仲裁的透明度公约（“透明度公约”），如果该条款获得批准，将对联合国国际贸易法委员会规则中，以条约为基础而提起的，某些具体涉及澳大利亚投资者和澳大利亚作为东道国仲裁的透明度产生影响。（“透明度规则”）

 依照投资条约投资者诉东道国仲裁如果适用适用透明度规则，由于东道国和投资者本国都是透明度公约缔约方，可能某些信息属于保密例外，无论适用什么仲裁规则，包括其中的保密条款，某些仲裁信息会公之于众。除此之外，除非有例外情况，应公开进行开庭审理。

该修正案规定，国际仲裁法第23C至23G条中的保密条款不适用于2018年10月26日之后开始的在澳大利亚进行的投资者诉东道国适用透明度公约的仲裁，否则仍将适用。除非双方有书面协议，否则其他投资者诉东道国仲裁和在澳大利亚进行的国际商业仲裁仍然适用国际仲裁法的保密制度。

依据《修正法》草案附带的解释性附件，提高《修正法》的透明度将促进仲裁实践的统一，并有助于投资者获得公平和公开开庭审理的权利。

4. 裁定费用的职权

根据《修正案》，仲裁庭根据国际仲裁法裁定费用的职权已趋于现代化和合理化。法律修订之前，仲裁庭在裁决费用时可以根据法院使用的费用裁定的比例或规则对这些费用作出“征税”（tax），而以后，仲裁庭已经没有这种做法了。2018年10月26日之后，在澳大利亚开始的仲裁程序中，仲裁员将拥有广泛的自由裁量权，在不涉及税收(taxation)的情况下裁决费用。

结 论

总的来说，修正案使澳大利亚的仲裁与国际最佳做法相一致，提高选择澳大利亚作为仲裁地的吸引力。

【英文原文】

     Amendmentsto the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth)

On 26 October 2018, the Civil Law andJustice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Cth)[1] (‘the Amendment Act’) came into effect, making a number of important changes to the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (‘the IAA’). The key reforms are summarised below.

1. Procedural requirements for enforcing foreign awards

 The Amendment Act clarifies that, under ss 8(1) and 8(5)(f ) of the IAA, foreign awards are binding between parties ‘to the award’ rather than between parties‘ to the arbitration agreement’ pursuant to which the foreign award was made[2].

This change, which applies retrospectively to arbitral proceedings commenced before the Amendment Act[3], settles uncertainty in the case law concerning the procedural requirements under s 9(1)of the IAA for enforcing a foreign award in Australia.

There was authority based on the pre-amendment language in s 8(1) of the IAA (ie, foreign awards are binding on the parties ‘to the arbitration agreement’) that the award creditor was required to prove in foreign award enforcement proceedings that the award debtor was aparty to the arbitration agreement[4].Subsequent authority held that, under s 9(1) of the IAA, the award creditor need only produce to the court the foreign award and the arbitration agreement purportedly binding the award debtor under which the foreign award was made,with the onus then shifting to the award debtor to prove that it was not bound by the arbitration agreement[5].

The effect of the Amendment Act is to clarify that the latter approach is to be followed in Australia, in line with Singapore, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.

2. ‘competent court’

The Amendment Act clarifies that the Federal Court of Australia as well as the Supreme Court of each of the States and the Territories is a ‘competent court’ for the purposes of recognising and enforcing interim measures and awards, as well as court assistance in taking evidence pursuant to the IAA[6].

This change, which applies only to arbitral proceedings commenced after 26 October 2018[7], removes the question which arose in Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 209 as to whether the Federal Court is a competent court under the IAA for the purposes of enforcing a non-foreign award arising out of an international commercial arbitration governed by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (‘the Model Law’).

In that case, the award debtor argued (among other things) that, while ss 8(2) and (3) of the IAA specifically vested jurisdiction in the Federal Court and the State and Territory courts to enforce foreign awards, no provision of the IAA specifically vested jurisdiction in any court to enforce Model Law awards rendered in Australia[8]. On that basis, the award debtor argued that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the award. Murphy J rejected that argument, deciding that the non-foreign Model Law award was enforceable by the Federal Court pursuant to its original jurisdiction under s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of “any matter arising under laws made by the Parliament” (ie, the IAA)[9].

 Following the Amendment Act, the Federal Courtis clearly empowered as a competent court for the purposes of enforcing foreign awards, Model Law awards rendered in Australia and interim measures, as well as providing evidentiary assistance.

5. Exceptions to confidentiality in certain investor-state arbitrations

The confidentiality provisions of the IAA have been updated to reflect Australia’s signing of the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (‘the Convention on Transparency’), which, if ratified, would give effect to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (‘the Transparency Rules’) in certain investor-state arbitrations involving Australian investors and Australia as a host-state.

In particular, in an investor-state arbitration pursuant to an investment treaty where the Transparency Rules apply, including because both the host-state and the state of the investor are parties to the Convention on Transparency, certain information in the arbitration may, subject to exceptions, be published or made publicly available irrespective of the applicable arbitration rules, including any confidentiality provisions. Furthermore, the hearings shall be public unless exceptions apply[10].

Under the Amendment Act, the confidentiality provisions in ss 23C to 23G of the IAA are excluded and do not apply to investor-state arbitrations commenced after 26 October 2018 which are seated in Australia and in which the Transparency Rules are applicable pursuant to the Convention on Transparency or otherwise[11]. The confidentiality regime in the IAA remains applicable to all other investor-state arbitrations and international commercial arbitrations seated in Australia, unless there is a written agreement between the parties that it will not apply.

According to the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the draft of the Amendment Act, increased transparency under the Amendment Act will promote consistency in arbitral practice and contribute to the right of individual investors to a fair and public hearing[12].

4. Powers to award costs

Under the Amendment Act, the powers of arbitral tribunals to award costs under the IAA have been modernised and streamlined. Prior to the changes, in awarding costs, an arbitral tribunal could ‘tax’ them, including on the basis of scales or other rules used by courts when making costs orders. That power has now been omitted. In arbitral proceedings seated in Australia commenced after 26 October 2018, arbitrators will simply have broad discretionary powers to award costs without reference to taxation[13].

Conclusion

Overall, commentators argue these amendments bring Australia in line with international best practice and continue to enhance Australia’s attractiveness as a seat for arbitration[14]

Notes:

[1] Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Cth).

[2]  Schedule 7, ss 2 and 4 ofthe Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Cth).

[3]  Schedule 7, s 5 of the CivilLaw and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Cth).

[4]  See Altain Khuder LLC v IMCMining Inc & Anor [2011] VSC 1.

[5] See Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Beach Building & CivilGroup Pty Ltd (2012) 292 ALR 161

[6]  Schedule 7, ss 6 and 7 ofthe Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Cth).

[7]  Schedule 7, s 8 of the CivilLaw and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Cth).

[8]  See Castel Electronics PtyLtd v TCL Airconditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 209, [34].

[9]  See Castel Electronics PtyLtd v TCL Airconditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 209, [57].

[10] Article 6 of the United Nations Convention on Transparency inTreaty-based Investor-State Arbitration.

[11] Schedule 7, ss 11 and 12 of the Civil Law and Justice LegislationAmendment Act 2018 (Cth).

[12] Explanatory Memorandum, Civil Law and Justice Legislation AmendmentBill 2017 (Cth), 9.

[13] Schedule 7, ss 13 to 17of the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Cth).

[14] Russell Thirgood and ErikaWilliams, Now in Force: Internationalising the International Arbitration Act(31 October 2018) McCullough Robertson Lawyers Bench PressBlog<http://www.mccullough.com.au/2018/10/31/now-in-force-internationalising-the-internationalarbitration-act/>;Adam Firth, Luke Carbon and Prajesh Shrestha, Recent Amendments to the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (8 November 2018) Ashurst News andInsigh <https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/recent-amendments-to-theinternational-arbitration-act/>;Ben Luscombe, Sam Luttrell and Peter Harris, 2.2 Changes to National Law(August 23 2018) Chambers & Partners Law and      Practice<https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/international-arbitration-2019/australia/22-changes-national-law>

By James Morrison

                                                                                                            来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA