A Federal Court judge has dismissed an attempt to undo Australian enforcement of a foreign arbitral award obtained by two LandOcean companies, rejecting an argument that the orders risked an impermissible double recovery.
The applicants are LandOcean Hong Kong Investment Holding Group and its Chinese parent, New JCM Group. Their award is against West Indies Exploration Company, incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago, and Australia’s Star Phoenix Group. Justice Stewart had earlier granted leave, without notice, to enforce the award as a judgment and temporarily stayed those orders so the respondents could challenge them.
The respondents asked the court to set the enforcement orders aside on public-policy grounds. They said the award and related arrangements could expose them to paying twice. The court was not persuaded that the asserted possibility met the demanding standard for refusing enforcement of a foreign award.
The interlocutory application was dismissed with costs. The immediate consequence is that the stay attached to the August enforcement orders has ended, leaving the judgment entered for the applicants operative. The ruling resolves this challenge to enforcement; it does not reopen the arbitral tribunal’s merits determination.
The case illustrates the narrow reach of Australia’s public-policy exception in international arbitration. A respondent must show more than a dispute about accounting or the risk of overlapping recovery, particularly where enforcement can be supervised through the court’s existing orders.
The Federal Court judgment sets out the order and its effect on the stay.
