Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd v Energy City Qatar Holding Company

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court (Australia)
• Judgment Date: 25 June 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] FCAFC 110
• Date: 25 June 2021

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd v Energy City Qatar Holding Company [2021] FCAFC 110

Appeal from:	Energy City Qatar Holding Company v Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1116; Energy City Qatar Holding Company v Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] FCA 1219
File number:	NSD 1045 of 2020
Judgment of:	ALLSOP CJ, MIDDLETON AND STEWART JJ
Date of judgment:	25 June 2021
Catchwords:	ARBITRATION – international arbitration – enforcement of award – where supervisory court appointed the arbitral tribunal – whether composition of the arbitral tribunal was in accordance with the agreement of the parties – comity – whether enforcing court should accept that the appointment of the tribunal by the supervisory court was in accordance with the agreement of the parties ; ARBITRATION – international arbitration – enforcement of award – nature of the burden of proving a ground for non-enforcement – whether discretion to enforce award should nevertheless be exercised – nature of the discretion ; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – settlement – where parties settled “in principle” – where judgment was complete subject to administrative matters prior to settlement – whether Court can hand down judgment notwithstanding settlement “in principle” – Court has a discretion to hand down judgment where it is in the public interest to do so
Legislation:	Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Cth) Sch 7 item 2 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.73(1)(b)(ii) International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) ss 2D, 3, 8, 39, Schs 1-2 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, opened for signature 10 June 1958, 330 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 June 1959) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (as adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 21 June 1985, and as amended on 7 July 2006) Civil and Commercial Arbitration Law (Qatar) (Law No. 2 of 2017) Art 33 Civil and Commercial Code of Procedure (Qatar) (Law No. 13 of 1990) Art 195
Cases cited:	AKN v ALC [2015] SGCA 18 Barclay’s Bank plc v Nylon Capital LLP [2011] EWCA Civ 826; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 912 Beijing Jishi Venture Capital Fund (Limited Partnership) v Liu [2021] FCA 477 Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite Ltd [1951] 2 KB 314 Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336 British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2009] NSWCA 414 Cameron Australasia Pty Ltd v AED Oil Ltd [2015] VSC 163 China Nanhai Oil Joint Service Corp Shenzhen Branch v Gee Tai Holdings Co Ltd [1994] HKCFI 215; [1994] 3 HKC 375 Clarke v Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 516 CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd [1997] HCA 33; 189 CLR 345 Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46; [2011] 1 AC 763 Dardana Ltd v Yukos Oil Co [2002] EWCA Civ 543; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 326 Dickenson’s Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania [1974] HCA 9; 130 CLR 177 Encyclopaedia Universalis SA v Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc, 03 Civ 4363 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2003) Encyclopaedia Universalis SA v Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc, 403 F 3d 85 (2nd Cir, 2005) Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” [2020] UKSC 38; [2020] 1 WLR 4117 F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy (No 1) [2011] EWHC 1851 (Ch); [2012] Bus LR 884 Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International NV [2007] FCAFC 43; 157 FCR 558 Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc [2008] EWCA Civ 23; Bus LR 888 Greenwich Inc Ltd (In Administration) v Dowling [2014] EWHC 2451 (Ch); WLR (D) 334 Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd v Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd [2013] FCAFC 109; 304 ALR 468 Gurney Consulting Engineers v Gleeds Health & Safety Ltd [2006] EWHC 536 (TCC); 108 Con LR 58 Hebei Import & Export Corp v Polytek Engineering Co Ltd [1999] HKCFA 40; [1999] 2 HKC 205 Hi-Fert Pty Ltd v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc (No 5) [1998] FCA 1485; 90 FCR 1 Hilton v Guyot 159 US 113 (1895) House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 IMC Aviation Solutions Pty Ltd v Altain Khuder LLC [2011] VSC 248; 38 VR 303 Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co Ltd v Alfield Group Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1223 Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trustees Inc v Goldberg (No 3) [2001] EWHC 396 (Ch); 4 All ER 950 (Ch D) Minmetals Germany GmbH v Ferco Steel Ltd [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 315 Osborne v Auckland Council [2014] NZSC 67; 1 NZLR 766 Paklito Investment Ltd v Klockner (East Asia) Ltd [1993] 2 HKLR 39 Povey v Qantas Airways Ltd [2005] HCA 33; 223 CLR 189 Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v McBains Cooper [2000] EWCA Civ 172; 1 WLR 2000 PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2014] 1 SLR 372; [2013] SGCA 57 PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2018] HKCFA 12; [2018] 3 HKC 458 TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 83; 232 FCR 361 TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5; 251 CLR 533 Voss v Davidson [2003] QCA 252 ; Allsop JLB, “Comity and Commerce” (Address to the 16th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia & the Pacific, Sydney, 8 November 2015) Bennett H and Broe GA, “The Civil Standard of Proof and the ‘Test’ in Briginshaw: Is There a Neurobiological Basis to Being ‘Comfortably Satisfied’?” (2012) 86 ALJ 258 Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A and Hunter M, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed, Oxford University Press, 2009) Born G, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd ed, Kluwer Law International, 2021) Herzfeld P and Prince T, Interpretation (2nd ed, Lawbook Co, 2020) Gageler S, “Alternative Facts and the Courts” (2019) 93 ALJ 585 Gageler S, “Evidence and Truth” (2017) 13 TJR 1 Van den Berg AJ, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation (Kluwer Law International, 1981)
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	International Commercial Arbitration
Number of paragraphs:	108
Date of hearing:	25 February 2021
Counsel for the Appellant:	T Mehigan SC
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Henry William Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	T D Castle SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Cowell Clarke Commercial Lawyers

ORDERS

		NSD 1045 of 2020
BETWEEN:	HUB STREET EQUIPMENT PTY LTD (ABN 52 109 882 617) Appellant
AND:	ENERGY CITY QATAR HOLDING COMPANY (REGISTERED IN THE CR UNDER NO. 34913) Respondent

order made by:	ALLSOP CJ, MIDDLETON AND STEWART JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	25 June 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders and declaration of the Court on 26 August 2020 in NSD 94 of 2020 be set aside and substituted with an order that the proceeding be dismissed.

3. The parties file and serve written submissions of no more than five pages on the questions of costs of the proceedings below...