Raguz v Sullivan

Raguz v Sullivan concerned an appeal from an arbitral award made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The appellant, Mr Raguz, sought to appeal the award on the grounds of an alleged error of law, pursuant to section 40 of the *Commercial Arbitration Act 1984* (NSW). The respondent, Mr Sullivan, contended that the appeal was barred by an "exclusion agreement" within the meaning of the Act.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the arbitration agreement, which was contained within a series of documents, constituted a "domestic arbitration agreement" for the purposes of the *Commercial Arbitration Act 1984*. If it was a domestic arbitration agreement, then section 40 of the Act would permit an appeal on a question of law, provided there was no exclusion agreement. Conversely, if it was not a domestic arbitration agreement, or if an exclusion agreement was found to exist, the appeal would be barred.

The Court considered the nature of the arbitration agreement, noting that it arose from a multipartite agreement evidenced by a reading of several documents. It distinguished between the "seat" or "place" of arbitration, which determines the curial law governing the arbitration, and the "place of hearing," which is merely a geographical location for the conduct of proceedings. The Court found that the parties had agreed to an arbitration conducted under the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which, in the context of the agreement, indicated a seat of arbitration outside of Australia. This determination meant the arbitration was not a "domestic arbitration" as defined by the Act, and therefore section 40 did not apply.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on a question of law. The proceedings were dismissed.