Puma Industrial Co Limited v Uno Resourcing Inc

Puma Industrial Co Limited (the applicant) sought to set aside an arbitration award made in favour of Uno Resourcing Inc (the respondent). The dispute concerned a contract for the supply of goods, and the arbitration was conducted under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), which gives effect to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The application to set aside the award was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the arbitration award should be set aside on the grounds that the applicant was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case. This ground for setting aside an award is provided for under Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. A secondary issue, if the primary issue was not determinative, concerned whether the award was in conflict with the public policy of Australia, as per Article 34(2)(b)(ii).

Justice Nancarrow considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the communication of the arbitration proceedings. The Court found that the respondent had made reasonable efforts to notify the applicant of the arbitration, including sending correspondence to the applicant's registered office and to a director whose contact details were provided by the applicant. The Court held that the applicant had not established that it was deprived of the opportunity to present its case or that it had not received proper notice. The Court also found that the award did not offend Australian public policy.

Consequently, the application to set aside the arbitration award was dismissed.