Altain Khuder LLC v IMC Mining Inc

Link copied
Case Copied 74 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

LIST G
No. 3827 of 2010

ALTAIN KHUDER LLC Plaintiff
v

IMC MINING INC

and

IMC MINING SOLUTIONS PTY LTD
(ACN 069 083 094)

Firstnamed Defendant

Secondnamed Defendant

---

JUDGE:

CROFT J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

20 August, 30 September and 4, 5 and 12 November 2010

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

28 January 2011

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Altain Khuder LLC v IMC Mining Inc & Anor

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2011] VSC 1

1st Revision: 10 February 2011 – [7], [12], [105] and [108]

---

ARBITRATION – Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award – Extent to which applicant for recognition and enforcement must establish existence of an arbitration agreement and a foreign arbitral award binding on the parties to the arbitration agreement in pursuance of which it was made – Extent of onus on a party resisting enforcement on the basis of the defences or grounds for resisting enforcement under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) and the Convention on the recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral awards, New York, 1958 (“New York Convention”) – Proper procedure, and appropriateness of ex parte application, applying for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award under Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceedings) Rules 2008, Order 9, and in accordance with Practice Note 2 of 2010 – Arbitration Business: International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), ss 2D, 3(1), 8, 9 and 39; New York Convention, Articles II, IV and V.

Dardana Ltd v Yukos Oil Co (also known as Petroalliance Services Co Ltd v Yukos Oil Co) [2002] EWCA Civ 543, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 326; Aloe Vera of America Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and Another [2006] 3 SLR(R) 174, [2006] SGHC 78; Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2010] 1 All ER 592 (Court of Appeal) and [2010] UKSC 46 (Supreme Court).

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr P. Megens, solicitor Mallesons Stephen Jaques
For the Firstnamed Defendant No appearance
For the Secondnamed Defendant Mr J. Digby QC with
Mr N. McAteer
Allens Arthur Robinson

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and procedural matters

  1. This is an application brought by originating motion dated 14 July 2010 for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated 15 September 2009 at Ulaanbaatar City, Mongolia, being Case # 12/09 of the Mongolian National Arbitration Centre at the Mongolian National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“the Award”).

  1. The Award named the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal as follows:

“Plaintiff

Altain Khuder LLC, Mongolia

Managing Director:  Batdorj G.

Address:  Tenggeriin tsag Center

Olympic Street 12,

Sub-district (Khoroo) 1, Sukhbaatar District

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Tel:  11-324930, 11-327991, 99086630

Defendant

IMC Mining Inc., Australia

Director:  Stewart Lewis

Tel:  0412 862018

Address:  British Virgin Islands, of Level 40

Riverside Centre, 123 Eagle Street

Brisbane Qld, Australia

Fax:  0732269101

Tel:  +61732269100, +6132269117

Email:  lewiss@imcal.com.au

Arbitral Tribunal

Arbitrator selected by the Plaintiff:…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Altain Khuder LLC v IMC Mining Inc and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] VSC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Altain Khuder LLC brought an application to the Federal Court of Australia for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award issued by an arbitral tribunal in Kazakhstan. The award was made against IMC Mining Inc, a company based in Australia. The application was contested by IMC Solutions, which claimed to be the successor-in-title of IMC Mining Inc. IMC Solutions sought to set aside the orders of the Court made on 20 August 2010, which allowed Altain Khuder LLC to enforce the arbitral award against IMC Mining Inc.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the applicant for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and a foreign arbitral award binding on the parties to the arbitration agreement. The court also had to consider the extent of the onus on a party resisting enforcement on the basis of the defences or grounds for resisting enforcement under the International Arbitration Act 1974 and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 1958 (New York Convention). The court further considered the appropriate procedure and the appropriateness of an ex parte application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.

The court found that the plaintiff had complied with the extent of its obligations under the International Arbitration Act and the corresponding provisions of the New York Convention for the purpose of seeking enforcement of the Award against IMC Solutions. The court held that IMC Solutions had failed to establish any defence or ground for resisting enforcement of the Award against it under the provisions of the International Arbitration Act or the corresponding provisions of the New York Convention. The court also held that the procedure for enforcing the arbitral award was appropriate and that the ex parte application was justified in the circumstances. Consequently, the second defendant’s summons to set aside the orders of 20 August 2010 was dismissed. The court reserved the question of costs and will hear the parties further on this issue.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find that the plaintiff complied with the extent of its obligations under ss 8 and 9 of the IAA (and the corresponding provisions of the New York Convention) for the purpose of seeking enforcement of the Award against the second defendant, IMC Solutions, and that IMC Solutions failed to establish any defence or ground for resisting enforcement of the Award against it under the provisions of s 8 of the IAA or the corresponding provisions of the Convention.Consequently, the second defendant’s summons to set aside the orders of 20 August 2010 is dismissed.I reserve the question of costs and will hear the parties further on this issue.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.