Differences between the Uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts and the New Acts - Research Paper Example

ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACTS AND THE NEW ACTS 1. Introduction The Uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts (hereunder the Uniform Acts) are a series of uniform laws, applicable across all Australian states and territories.1 Since 2002, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) has engaged in deliberate reform efforts meant to review the Uniform Acts. However, the reform efforts stalled in 2007 owing to lack of consensus among the different states and territories regarding the amendments needed in the legislation.2 There was consensus in the larger Australia that the Uniform Acts had been passed by events especially in regard to changes occurring in the international sphere. Specifically, a parliamentary debate in 2009 indicated that the Uniform Acts were a reflection of past English Arbitration laws dating back to the 1950s and 1970s.3 The same thoughts were expressed by the Chief Justice of New South Wales Judge JJ Spigelman who categorically stated that the Uniform Acts “had become embarrassingly out of date”. 4 Based on the perception that the Uniform Acts are ineffective in the current commercial environment considering the developments that have occurred since it was first enacted in 1984/85, the SCAG has proposed to revise the different provisions in the Uniform Acts in order to update the Act and by so doing revitalise the commercial arbitration system in states and territories and Australia as a whole.5 The proposed revisions are modelled according to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) international commercial arbitration law which was enacted in 1985 (hereunder Model Law).6 To make the proposed commercial arbitration Acts relevant to specific states, territories and Australia in general, its framers have proposed additional provisions that will clarify the act in the local context, in addition to supporting the arbitration processes in Australia.7 If passed, the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2009 (referred as the Bill hereunder), will become the new Commercial Arbitration Acts. 2. Essential Differences between the Uniform Acts and the New Acts Generally, it has been argued that if enacted, the Bill will enable the abandonment of current Uniform Acts, which allow courts to intervene in awarding damages in arbitration processes.8 Consequently, the maximum autonomy of commercial parties and minimal intervention by the courts as indicated in the Model Law will take effect. For example, the provisions in the current Uniform Acts have a rule that aggrieved parties can use to petition the Supreme Court to correct arbitral awards issued by lower courts. The Bill has proposed a correction of such a law in line with the Model law hence increasing the certainty of commercial arbitration laws in Australia significantly. The removal of the rule that encourages parties to appeal may encourage parties to settle their disputes through arbitration rather than through litigation.9 Overall, it is expected that if enacted the Bill will enable parties to be freer when determining dispute resolution procedures to follow. Specifically, it has been argued that settling commercial disputes has been expensive and hence encouraging the adoption of arbitration through sealing the legal loopholes that make it an attractive option to parties in dispute would provide a less-formal, cheaper, and quicker method of commercial dispute resolution.10 It is also expected that the New Acts will give arbitrators power to issue interim orders for purposes of protecting the affected parties when the arbitration is ongoing. The proposal in the Bill further limits grounds for appeal, setting aside, or correction by courts. By so doing, the Bill gives arbitrators more power especially since parties will be bound by decisions made at the arbitration stage. A. Opt-in vs. Opt-out The Uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts have provisions that enable parties to control the dispute resolution process by opting for arbitration. By so doing, it is argued that the Acts provide a leeway through which parties (particularly defendants) could lengthen proceedings by opting for litigation instead of arbitration, hence wasting valuable time for both parties and the courts.11 Refusal to participate in arbitration meant that parties could use litigation to resolve their commercial disputes. By so doing, and considering that litigation has inherent benefits that courts give to parties, which are not available in arbitration, most parties (especially defendants) opted for the former. In choosing arbitration therefore, parties were seen to have opted-out or foregone the benefits provided by litigation and settling for the limited provision of arbitration.12 In the proposed New Acts, parties will have an option to opt-out; in other words, parties have limited options to resolve their disputes and arbitration is packaged as the most effective, fast and cheap method. As such, parties who would like to pursue litigation as a method of settling disputes would need to opt out of the arbitration, which in this case, would be the easier, faster and more promising process compared to litigation. In the New Acts, parties can opt-in to an appeal within three months after awards have been granted through arbitration. Additionally, parties must agree to obtain leave of court within the same time frame.13 Overall, and unlike in the Uniform Acts, the New Acts do not contain ‘opt-in’ agreements that would reserve the parties’ right to appeal. As such, and as indicated above, a party that needs to file an appeal for awards granted during arbitration must do so within three months of the awards and must also obtain leave of court. Additionally, in the New Acts, it is suggested that parties should agree in writing to reserve the appeal rights even before going into arbitration.14 B. Minimal Intervention by Courts In the New Acts, court intervention will be limited to supporting the arbitration process during the appointment of arbitrators, handling challenges encountered by the arbitrators, and granting or enforcing interim measures. Courts will also play a role in enforcing procedural orders issued by the arbitrating tribunal, and/or issuing subpoenas to parties who are useful in giving evidence in the arbitral tribunals.15 Courts will also intervene in stay of court proceedings filed in the course of the arbitration agreement. Additionally, the courts can on limited grounds, set aside award for parties involved in a commercial dispute. Finally, courts’ intervention can occur in relation to recognising and enforcing awards granted during the arbitral processes.16 Arguably, the greatest difference between the Uniform Acts and the New Acts is that the latter substantially limits courts’ capacity to “set aside arbitral award”.17 The New Acts introduce a new section that gives parties in a commercial dispute the option to opt-in to a judicial review on condition of error of law.18 This means that courts must consider whether the tribunal’s decision is either obviously wrong on ‘open to serious doubt’. Additionally, courts will be expected to decide whether to grant a leave to appeal based on their evaluation of the tribunal’s proceedings. In other words, the courts will not be required to conduct a hearing in order to determine whether or not to grant a leave to appeal. Under the New Acts, courts will set aside an award based on error of law only as a last resort.19 In other words, the arbitral tribunal will be the first to approach with any complaints for presumed defective awards for consideration. C. Stay of Court Proceedings The New Acts are significantly different from the Uniform Acts in that they depart from the latter’s approach in handling stay of court proceedings. Section 53 of the Uniform Acts gave courts the discretion to stay court proceedings filed in the courts following arbitration agreements that refer to arbitration disputes.20 The New Acts on the other hand, in reference to article 8 of the Model Law, states that a court’s mandate to stay court proceedings should be on request from a party of the arbitration agreement. The court should refer the matter to arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is deemed to be inoperative, null and void, or not possible to perform.21 D. Mediator-Conciliator In the Uniform Acts, an arbitrator could also act as a ‘mediator, conciliator or a non-arbitral intermediary’ as long as he/she had the authorisation to do so.22 While the New Acts have similar provisions, it states that the arbitration agreement must provide for the arbitrator to act as a mediator or conciliator. Section 27D of the New Acts also specifically states that an arbitrator who is acting as a mediator/conciliator may communicate separately with the parties involved in the commercial dispute. However, should the mediation fail, the arbitrator-cum-mediator cannot carry on with his/her arbitration role unless both parties authorise him/her to do so through written consent. Even then, the New Acts compel the arbitrator to disclose any confidential information obtained during the mediation process to other parties in the arbitral tribunal. This is a controversial requirement, with some critics arguing that it would undermine the confidentiality of both parties.23 Notably, the disclosure requirements though meant to enable other parties in the arbitral tribunal to understand the dispute fully; will most likely make it difficult for the arbitrator-mediator process to gain traction in Australia. E. Judicial Supervision In sections 38 and 42 of the Uniforms Acts, judicial supervision - i.e. judicial review if there were errors of law and arbitral awards granted by courts based on misconduct - is provided for. These provisions have been regarded as having contributed to a great level of judicial supervision and interference, hence limiting parties the flexibility needed to choose between litigation and arbitration processes.24 In the proposed Acts however, the judicial supervision has reduced significantly and if enacted into law, arbitral awards will in future be appealed only if they are relevant to a question of law or when there is serious irregularity that can be proven under law.25 In such cases, the extent of judicial supervision and interference will be limited to grounds set out in the New Acts. In cases where the parties would require greater judicial supervision, they will be required to adopt extra opt-in provisions. Under the Uniform Acts, courts could grant the parties involved in a dispute the permission to appeal. Alternatively, both parties could agree to file appeals in courts. 26 Overall, the New Acts have removed courts discretion to stay proceedings whenever there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. F. Writing Requirements in Arbitral Agreements The New Acts have adopted the provision in the 1985 Model Law that states that ‘an arbitration agreement shall be in writing’.27 Notably, the requirement for an agreement to be in writing does not invalidate oral agreements evidenced in writing. This provision for the arbitration agreement to be either in writing or evidenced through writing makes the New Acts more liberal compared to the Uniform Acts, which strictly defined the formality terms of an agreement to be strictly be in writing. The New Acts hence make formal validity a more flexible concept in recognition that oral agreements evidenced in writing also deserve recognition during arbitration. Earlier in 2006, in a decision regarding Comandate Marine Corp v Australia Shipping,28 the federal Court had ruled that signed letters are sufficient fulfilment for the written requirement in the Uniform Acts. Another ruling in Seeley International PTY Ltd v Electra Air Conditioning B,29 however indicated that ambiguous drafting was still an issue in dispute resolution in Australia. Making the formality of agreements liberal by allowing oral agreements evidenced in writing is arguably likely to make it easier for arbitrators to interpret and rule on different agreements. This is especially likely considering that there is no requirement in law for arbitration agreements to be mutual. The arbitral agreement is essential in both the Uniform and New Acts because arbitration, especially in commercial disputes, cannot be possible without the existence of agreements or contracts. While the Uniform Acts adopt the traditional approach that regards agreements as only possible through writing, the New Acts have been influenced by Model law, and as such recognise that an arbitration agreement can be contractual or not; may be in form of a separate agreement or a clause in the arbitration contract; and the arbitration clause [must] be in writing even though the contract may have been entered-into or concluded orally.30 This means that the New Acts recognise that arbitration agreements can be recorded in different forms other than writing, which can be reproduced and used as proof of agreement between the parties in dispute at a future date. G. Bias Challenges The Uniform Acts relied on R v Sussex Justices; Ex Parte McCarthy31 to test for bias whereby, the notion of ‘reasonable apprehension of bias’ was established. The New Acts on the other hand have adopted a new test for testing bias, which seeks to find out if ‘real danger of partiality’ can be detected among the arbitrators. The wording of the test of bias for the New Acts is derived from R V Gough. 32 Notably, the decision delivered by the House of Lords in the latter case raised the bar in relation to bias challenge. As such, it means that the New Acts will have a more efficient bias test especially because it has been noted that there are two possible outcomes where the acts are applied. 33 In the first possible outcome where the ‘real danger’ standard is applied, the vantage arm could remain a matter to be handled in common law.34 The second possible outcome is that while the ‘real danger’ standard is applied, telle quelle (by the fact itself) would be taken as a replacement for the apparent bias test in the common law.35 H. Interim Measures The Uniform Acts have given the arbitral tribunal powers to give interim awards. However, the same Acts do not address whether or not the tribunals should issue interim measures or interlocutory directions in order to protect the interest of both or either parties.36 This meant that while an arbitrator could advise parties to adopt specific measures during the arbitration, he/she did not have the powers to make an interlocutory order. On its part, the New Acts have adopted a similar approach to the Model Law, which has provisions that enable arbitrators to issues interim measures, hence providing the arbitration process the recognition and the powers to enforce the same measures. The New Acts have defined the interim measures as: [A]ny temporary measure, whether in the form of an award or in another form, by which, at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is finally decided... Under the New Acts, the tribunal has the powers to order parties or a party to: uphold or reinstate the status quo until such a time when the dispute is determined and settled; or act or refrain from acting in a manner that is likely to cause harm or prejudice the arbitral process; or preserve assets, which will be used to satisfy subsequent awards; or preserve evidence, which is likely to be relevant for purposes of resolving the commercial dispute. One of the most significant improvements in the New Acts is that while the Uniform Acts did not provide a mechanism through which courts could enforce measures (if any) issued by the arbitral tribunal, the New Acts has an enforcement mechanism. The enforcement mechanism is especially relevant because arbitrators do not have powers to hold either party accountable for not abiding by the interim measures. As such, where a party refuses to abide by the interim measures, courts can come in and enforce the same. 37 I. Procedural Rules Major differences between the Uniform Acts and the New Acts are further apparent in the rules of procedures in the different regimes. Notably however, the fact that the New Acts have additional constraints limiting the tribunal’s discretion sets it apart from the Uniform Acts.38 Additionally, in the New Acts, parties have an increased chance to shape the arbitration process. Notably, the reform in the rules of procedures have been derived from the Model Law, and the Model Law Plus additions that were introduced to cater for the domestic commercial arbitration exigencies.39 Some of the new reforms that are the New Acts and which were not in the Uniform Acts (or were not fully addressed) include: the requirement that arbitrators should treat parties equally; the requirement that individuals who are not legally qualified can represent parties during the arbitral hearings; the enabling of the tribunal to make expert appointments for purposes of explaining specific issues identified by the tribunal as needing expert advice; and the provision that enables the arbitrator to act as a conciliator, mediator or non-arbitral intermediary as explained elsewhere in this paper.40 J. Umpires In the New Acts, the provision that allowed umpires to be included in the arbitral processes as a replacement for the arbitrators has been removed. 41 Consequently, the New Acts do not have provisions for either an umpire or any other intervening official. This then means that the New Acts make it clear that arbitrators have a role that cannot be passed to any other party during the arbitral process. K. Written and Oral Hearings The Uniform Acts had given arbitrators some level of control to decide what form the arbitral hearings would take.42 The New Acts on the other hand have expanded such control in line with provision of the Model Law, and by so doing, have allowed the tribunal discretion to decide whether the submissions will either be oral or written. Such discretion is however subject to disagreement between parties.43 This means that should parties agree on the type of submissions to make during the hearings, the tribunal would not need to decide on what type of submissions are best suited for the specific hearings. The tribunal’s discretion under the New Acts has also been extended to decisions regarding when to hold hearings. Specifically, the New Acts have stated that unless there is an agreement between the parties that a hearing will not be necessary, the tribunal must set up an appropriate date to commence the hearings if any of the parties request for the same.44 Under the New Acts, the tribunal is also required to issue advance notice to parties regarding any scheduled hearings or inspection of property, documents or goods.45Additionally, the tribunal is responsible for ensuring that parties provide the other party with all evidence submitted to it for use in the proceedings. Like other elements in the new form proposed in the New Acts, the provision of evidence from one party to the other is meant to enhance procedural fairness. The concept of procedural fairness is further extended in the New Acts by the requirement that parties to a commercial dispute must be provided with any expert reports and/or evidentiary documents that the tribunal intends to rely on while making its decision.46 L. Parties and their Duties The Uniform Acts had provided that parties involved in arbitration would at all times do ‘all’ things required by the arbitrator of the umpire. According to the Uniform Acts, the parties’ compliance with the arbitrator or umpire was meant to enable the making of just awards. Parties were also barred from wilfully acting or engaging in conduct that would prevent or delay an award to be made.47 The New Acts on the other hand are more expansive and have veered from the Model Law ostensibly to provide home grown provisions that would address the Australian commercial dispute environment efficiently. Specifically, the New Acts provide that ‘parties must do all things necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitral proceedings’. 48 Additionally, parties are compelled to, without limitations or undue delay, comply with directions issued by the arbitral tribunal on evidentiary, procedural or other matters. Further, the New Acts authorise parties in an arbitral agreement to, without delay, take steps needed to obtain court decisions in relation to matters conferred to the courts in section 6 of the same Acts.49 In other words, the New Acts have reiterated that parties to the arbitral agreement must not wilfully cause, do, or engage in conduct meant to prevent or delay awards from being made. This is a shift from the past where parties could engage the court proceedings as a way of deliberately delaying or preventing the awards from being made. M. Awards Both the Uniform Acts and the New Acts indicate that awards should be: in writing; signed by arbitrators; and include a statement indicating reasons why the awards were made.50 Both the Uniform and New Acts further give the tribunal powers to rectify any mistakes that may be deemed fit in the awards. The New Acts however differ from the Uniform Acts in that they give the tribunal powers – as long as there in an agreement between parties - to provide an interpretation in regard to a specific provision or statement in the award. In the New Acts, the interpretation is included as an essential part of award specifically because it is argued that it will enhance enforcement.51 Notably, there has been contention between the Supreme Courts in Victoria and New South Wales, with the latter stating that the former had erred in its arguments that arbitrators need to issue complex reasons in proportion with the complexity contained in the arbitral proceedings, in relation to the reason given in specific circumstances. The Victoria Supreme Court had issued the ruling in Oil basins Ltd v BHP Billiton Ltd.52 On its part, the NSW Supreme Court in a ruling in Gordian runoff Ltd v Westport Insurance Corporation,53 had indicated that an arbitrator’s responsibility was simply to ‘set out what, on their view of the evidence, did or did not happen and should explain succinctly why, in light of what happened, they have reached their decision and what the decision is’.54 In disregarding the decision of Victoria’s Supreme Court, the NSW Supreme Court referred extensively to international law and academic sources, something that the New Acts has emulated through its references to the Model Law. Some commentators have even indicated that the New Acts appear to compel courts to refer to International Law when interpreting legislation.55 N. Error of Law The New Acts have considerably narrowed options that parties can use to challenge an arbitral award. The Uniform Acts had indicated that courts do not have jurisdiction to turn over awards granted by arbitral tribunals merely based on a fact or error of law. Lord Duneid had in Champsey Bhara & Co v Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co Ltd, 56 defined an error of law as: An error of law on the face if the awards means, in their Lordships’ view, that you can finds in the award or a document actually incorporate thereto, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgement, some legal propositions which is the basis of the award and which you can then say us erroneous. The definition above made in reference to the provision of the Uniform Acts did not make matters any easier for parties, the arbitral processes, or the courts during the Uniform Acts regime; in fact, it is argued that the appellate regime was pretty uncertain hence leading to serious consequences for both parties involved in a commercial dispute.57 Some of the cases where the error of law was used include Oil basins Ltd v BHP Billiton Ltd.58 Here the arbitrators were found not to have given adequate reasons explaining their decision. Another case is Energy Brix Australia Corp Pty Ltd v National Logistics Coordinators (Morwell) PTY Ltd,59 where it was found that the arbitrator had erred in law by concluding that only a contract under seal could be used to discharge a previous similar contract (i.e. a previous contract under seal). The New Acts have attempted to make error of law matters simpler to handle. Specifically, the New Acts permit appeals to be made from a ‘simple question of law’.60 As noted above in the section addressing the reduced intervention by courts, even where an error of law provides grounds for appeal, the parties will only do so if they opt-in and state the same in the arbitration agreement or agree to appeal the award within three months of issuance. In other cases, where parties do not either opt-in through an agreement or agree to appeal an award within three months of its granting, there cannot be ground for appeal based on error of law in the New Acts.61 __ Overall, it is worth noting that the New Acts in Sections 27E -27I have introduced elaborate confidentiality provisions that were lacking in the Uniform Acts. The provisions indicate that unless otherwise agreed by parties, arbitration proceedings under the New Acts will be inherently confidential except where defined exceptions are applicable. The confidentiality advantage in the New Acts is arguably a welcome reform since it makes arbitration a more attractive option to parties in dispute compared to litigation. The New Acts have not however addressed the issue on whether arbitration-related proceedings will be held in open or closed courts. Notably, holding such proceedings in an open court would erode the confidentiality granted at the arbitration phase, hence the recommendation that Australian courts should adopt the precedent set in rule 39.2 of UK’s civil procedure rules.62 Rule 39.2 of the civil procedure rules makes it a general rule for all hearing as to be made in public except in certain exceptions that require confidentiality.63 3. Will the New Acts Increase the use of Commercial Arbitration? While introducing the International Arbitration Bill in the House of Representatives in 2009, the Attorney-General stated that the reforms contained in the Bill would ensure that Australia would remain at the “forefront of international arbitration best practice”.64 The AG argued that in addition to enabling Australians to resolve their commercial disputes amicably, and in an efficient, fast and cost-effective manner, the proposed reforms to the Uniform Acts would enhance Australia’s position as an international arbitration centre by living up to set international arbitration standards.65 Based on these views by the AG, and assuming that he was right, one can argue that it is indeed possible for the use of commercial arbitration to increase in Australia following the review of the Uniform Acts. However, it is worth noting that a cultural change is also necessary if Australians will embrace arbitration of litigation in resolving commercial disputes. Specifically, “arbitrators need to stop thinking of themselves as common law judges without robes and start thinking of themselves as service providers”.66 Judges and the courts they preside over on the other hand need to recognise arbitration as a valid process that serves an essential role in commercial dispute resolution. As indicated elsewhere in this paper, judicial supervision needs to be limited to ensuring that the arbitrators remain objective and within the law. In other words, the New Acts are a step in the right direction, but they are not in any way an end by themselves; as such, Australians need to invent an arbitration process that will do away with needless formalities, and pursue beneficial causes for parties. Such causes include the identification, problem-solving, and delivery of swift and cost-effective outcomes for both parties. The New Acts, once amended by the proposed bills in different states and territories, will most likely provide a solid legal framework that can support the adoption of commercial arbitration. In addition to the New Acts, it has been noted that Australia needs to change how mediators (and lawyers) charge parties that approach them for service provision.67 This argument is based on the observation that while the Uniform Acts played a major role in hindering parties’ preference of arbitration, the mediator’s approach to charging clients by the hour has also played a major role in making mediation an unattractive dispute resolution method.68 In fact, and in relation to attracting international commercial disputes, the hourly-based billing may still mean that parties will prefer arbitration venues outside Australia since the costs in such venues would be relatively lower compared to Australia’s.69 It is also important for the different states and territories to remove all unnecessary obstacles that make it difficult for parties in dispute to adopt arbitration. Such obstacles include provisions in sections 14 and 7C of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) and Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) respectively, which stipulate that ‘any term in a domestic building contract or other agreement that requires a dispute under the contract to be referred to arbitration is void’.70 In other words, while the New Acts are a step in the right direction, Australians cannot rely on them alone if they intend to increase the use of commercial arbitration in the resolution of commercial disputes. However, it is possible that the reforms in the New Acts will attract more parties to consider the use of arbitration. This is because the new regime enhances party autonomy; minimises intervention by courts; enlarges arbitrators’ powers substantially; and enables procedural efficiencies through the use of innovative procedures by the arbitrators. This is in addition to the fact that the New Acts have made arbitration confidential. 4. Conclusion The attractive nature of arbitration over litigation is said to be contained in the former’s cheapness, speed, secrecy and expertise. If that is indeed true, the New Acts will no doubt bring fundamental changes in how domestic arbitrations in Australia are conducted and hence draw more parties to it. The fact that the New Acts follow the Model Law is an indication that they will most likely bring the arbitral regime in Australia closer to the international regime. Second, the use of the 2006 Model Law also presents the possibility that the arbitral regime in Australia will draw closer to the international best practice in legislative procedures. Third, the use of the Model Law as the basis of the New Acts will probably enhance Australia’s reference to jurisprudence developed in other countries that use the Model Law. Overall, and has been indicated elsewhere in this paper, the New Acts will no doubt increase the incidence of commercial arbitration in the resolution of commercial disputes in Australia, but only on a limited basis. If a real increase is to be witnessed, there need to be several other changes that include removing the unnecessary obstacles that make parties to prefer litigation over arbitration. Bibliography Articles/Books/ Reports Albert Monichino, ‘Reform of the Australian Domestic Arbitration Acts- It’s Time’ (2009) The Arbitrator & Mediator 83. James J Spigelman, ‘Forward: Commercial arbitration in Australia’ (2011) DS Jones 1. Vijay Bhatia, Christopher Candlin and Maurizio Gotti, Discourse and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration: Issues, Challenges and Prospects (2012) 30. Case Law Champsey Bhara & Co v Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co Ltd [1923] PC 66 cited by Raipur Development Authority etc. etc. v Chokhamal Contractors etc. etc. [1989] 3 CSR 144, .6 Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping [2006] FCFAC 192. Energy Brix Australia Corp Pty Ltd v National Logistics Coordinators (Morwell) PTY Ltd [2002] 5 VR 353. Gordian Runoff Ltd v Westport Insurance Corporation [2010] NSWCA 57. Oil basins Ltd v BHP Billiton Ltd [2007] 18 VR 346. . R v Gough [1993] AC 646. R v Sussex Justices; Ex Parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 356 R v Thames Magistrate; Ex Parte Polemis [1974] 2 All ER 1219. Seeley International Pty Ltd v Electra Air Conditioning BV [2008] FCA 29. Legislation Law Council of Australia, Uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts –Consultation on Draft Bill, (2010), Law Council of Australia Limited at 10 July 2012. Nicola Nygh and Sam Luttrell, Focus: New Commercial Arbitration Acts for the States (2009) Allens Linklaters LLP at 11 July 2012. Northern Territory, Commercial Arbitration (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011, Legislative assembly of the Northern Territory, 15 August 2011, at 10 July 2012. Northern Territory, Commercial Arbitration (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011, Second Reading Speeches, 15 August 2011, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/bill_srs/caulb2011508/srs.html at 10 July 2012. Other Sources Albert Monichino, ‘Arbitration Law in Victoria Comes of Age’ Paper presented to the Victorian Department of Justice, Melbourne, 30 November 2011) 10. Cameron Miles, Sam Luttrell and Stephen McComish, Understanding Australia’s New Domestic Arbitration Regime: a Comparison of the Australian State Commercial Arbitration Acts and the New Model Commercial Arbitration Bill (2012) Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, at 12 July 2012. Clyde Croft, ‘Arbitration Law Reform and the Arbitration List G of the Supreme Court of Victoria’ Paper presented at a discussion night hosted by the Building Dispute Practitioners’ Society Inc, Melbourne 5 May 2010) 6. Michael Bywell, Chris Connor and Joanne Staugas, Appeal Rights under the New Uniform commercial Arbitration Law, (2010) Johnson Winter & Slattery Lawyers http://www.jws.com.au/__files/f/5191/Appeal%20rights%20under%20the%20new%20uniform%20Commercial%20Arbitration%20Law%20June%202012.pdf > at 11 July 2012. Read More