Jason Gazal Trading Pty Ltd v Emile Greiss

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the applicant, Jason Gazal Trading Pty Ltd, sought to enforce an arbitral award against the respondent, Emile Greiss. The dispute arose from a joint venture agreement between the parties, which contained an arbitration clause. Following a dispute concerning the performance of the agreement, an arbitration was conducted, resulting in an award in favour of Jason Gazal Trading Pty Ltd. The company then sought to have this award recognised and enforced by the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the arbitral award was valid and enforceable under the *International Arbitration Act 1974* (Cth) (the Act), which gives effect to the *New York Convention*. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the award was contrary to public policy, a ground for refusing enforcement under Article V(2)(b) of the Convention, as incorporated by the Act. The respondent argued that the arbitration process itself, and consequently the award, was tainted by fraud and corruption, rendering it unenforceable.

Justice Ian Thompson considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the alleged fraud and corruption. The court applied the principles established in cases concerning the enforcement of arbitral awards, particularly the high threshold required to establish that an award is contrary to public policy. The court found that the respondent had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the award was obtained by fraud or corruption, or that its enforcement would be contrary to Australian public policy. The court noted that mere allegations of fraud, without substantiation, were insufficient to resist enforcement.

Consequently, the court ordered that the arbitral award be enforced.