Tianjin Jishengtai Investment Consulting Partnership Enterprise v Huang

The matter in Tianjin Jishengtai Investment Consulting Partnership Enterprise v Huang concerned an application to enforce an arbitral award made in the People’s Republic of China. The applicant sought to enforce the award against the respondent, who raised objections regarding the certification of the documents related to the award and the form of the orders resulting from the arbitral award. The court was required to decide whether the requirements of section 9 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) had been met and, if so, what form the orders for enforcement should take.

The court determined that the requirements of section 9 of the International Arbitration Act had been met. Despite the respondent's concerns about the form of the documents, the court found that there was no genuine dispute about the authenticity of the documents, and the application of the hearsay provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) would have caused unnecessary expense and delay. Furthermore, the court held that the appropriate form of the orders for enforcement should include a declaration under section 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act that the applicant is entitled to enforce the award as if it were a judgment of the Court. The court also directed the parties to confer and propose agreed or competing orders reflecting the court's reasons for judgment.

The court granted the application for enforcement of the arbitral award and ordered that the applicant is entitled to enforce the award against the respondent as if the award were a judgment of the Court. The court directed the parties to confer and propose agreed or competing orders reflecting the court's reasons for judgment within seven days. The court also noted that the judgment should be calculated in Australian dollars at the official exchange rate.