United Mexican States v Cabal

The United Mexican States sought to enforce a foreign arbitral award against Mr. Cabal in Australia. Mr. Cabal resisted enforcement, arguing that the award was not final and binding. The matter came before Gleeson CJ in chambers.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the arbitral award, which was subject to an appeal in Mexico, could be considered "final and binding" for the purposes of enforcement in Australia under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).

Gleeson CJ considered the meaning of "final and binding" in the context of international arbitration and the enforcement of foreign awards. His Honour noted that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), which is given effect in Australia by the International Arbitration Act, requires an award to be final and binding before it can be enforced. His Honour found that an award that is still subject to appeal in its country of origin is not, in the ordinary sense, final and binding. Accordingly, the United Mexican States had not established that the award was final and binding.

The application for leave to enforce the award was dismissed.