Arbitration Award Enforcement - Shanghai Qifan Cable Co. Ltd v Aryam Australia Pty Ltd

Original Word Document (84.4 KB) Federal Court of Australia

Shanghai Qifan Cable Co. Ltd v Aryam Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 425

| File number: | NSD 193 of 2026 |
| | |
| Judgment of: | STEWART J |
| | |
| Date of judgment: | 20 March 2026 |
| | |
| Date of publication of reasons: | 13 April 2026 |
| | |
| Catchwords: | ARBITRATION – ex parte application for enforcement of foreign arbitral award under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) – where requirements satisfied and no reason why award should not be enforced – two stage process – judgment entered but stayed pending determination of any challenge by the respondent |
| | |
| Legislation: | Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 52(2)(a)

International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), ss 3(1), 8(1), 8(3), 8(5)(f), 9

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 28.44, 39.06

International Arbitration Act 1994 (Singapore), s 3

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, opened for signature 10 June 1958, 330 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 June 1959)

UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (as adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 21 June 1985, and as amended on 7 July 2006), Art 34(3) |
| | |
| Cases cited: | Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain (relief) [2025] FCA 1469

Hankuk Carbon Co Ltd v Energy World Corporation Ltd [2024] FCA 232

Ripple Markets APAC Pte Ltd v EzyRemit Worldwide Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1551

Siemens WLL v BIC Contracting LLC [2022] FCA 1029

Tianjin Jishengtai Investment Consulting Partnership Enterprise v Huang [2020] FCA 767 |
| | |
| Division: | General Division |
| | |
| Registry: | New South Wales |
| | |
| National Practice Area: | Commercial and Corporations |
| | |
| Sub-area: | International Commercial Arbitration |
| | |
| Number of paragraphs: | 23 |
| | |
| Date of hearing: | 11 March 2026 |
| | |
| Date of last submissions: | 19 March 2026 |
| | |
| Counsel for the Applicant: | B Yin |
| | |
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | McLachlan Thorpe Partners |
ORDERS

| | | NSD 193 of 2026 |
| | | |
| BETWEEN: | SHANGHAI QIFAN CABLE CO. LTD

Applicant | |
| AND: | ARYAM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Respondent | |

| order made by: | STEWART J |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 20 MARCH 2026 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), the final award of Kevin Lim dated 23 October 2025, SIAC Arbitration No. 557 of 2024 (ARB 557/24/HTD) (Award) be enforced against the respondent as if it were a judgment of the Court.

2. Judgment be entered against the respondent in the sum of AUD 922,320.49.

3. Interest be payable from the date of judgment pursuant to s 52 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this proceeding, as agreed or assessed.

5. The matter be returnable before Stewart J at 10:15am on 1 May 2026 (Return Date).

6. Orders 1 - 4 be stayed until 5:00pm on the Return Date, or, if by 21 April 2026 the respondent files an application to set aside the orders, until the final determination of that application.

7. The applicant:

(a) Provide notice of these orders to the respondent by 5:00 pm on Tuesday 24 March 2026; and

(b) Inform the respondent that unless it files an application to oppose and set aside these orders by 21 April 2026, then upon an affidavit being provided establishing to the Court’s satisfaction that notice has been given to the respondent, the stay granted in order 6 will expire.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STEWART J:

Introduction

1 The applicant is Shanghai Qifan Cable Co. Ltd, a Chinese company that manufactures cables. It applied ex parte to enforce a foreign arbitral award under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA) against the respondent, Aryam Australia Pty Ltd, an Australian company engaging in business in the cable industry.

2 The foreign award that the applicant sought to enforce is an award issued by Mr Kevin Lim as sole arbitrator on 23 October 2025 in Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) arbitration no. 557 of 2024. The award, which was made in Singapore, was designated as award no. 161 of 2025 in SIAC’s registry of awards.

3 After the application was heard on 11 March 2026, I was satisfied of all but one of the relevant requirements for the ex parte enforcement of the award under s 8(3) – enforcement without notice being sanctioned by Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR) r 28.44(3). The outstanding matter was that there was, at the time of the hearing, insufficient evidence before me to be satisfied that the respondent had been given notice of the award and, if so, when that had occurred. The applicant was given the opportunity to adduce further evidence to satisfy me of those matters. The applicant did so on 19 March 2026 by tendering an email dated 23 October 2025 from SIAC to the parties to the arbitration attaching the award, upon which I made orders enforcing the award but staying the orders until the return date (as in Ripple Markets APAC Pte Ltd v EzyRemit Worldwide Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1551 (Ripple Markets) at [16]). These are my reasons for making those orders.

Factual background to the award

4 The factual background to the underlying dispute can be briefly stated. In 2019 and 2020, the applicant supplied the respondent with cable products pursuant to five purchase orders, with payment by the respondent due on various dates between September 2019 and December 2020. However, as at 25 June 2024, four of the five purchase orders remained unpaid.

5 Following various exchanges of correspondence in July and July 2024, the applicant and the respondent entered into a supplementary payment agreement dated 19 July 2024 (SPA). By the SPA, the parties agreed that the respondent would pay the applicant four instalments in US dollars from July to October 2024, and two instalments in Australian dollars in December 2024. The total price to be paid represented a discount of AUD163,329.86 off the amount owing by the respondent under the four outstanding purchase orders (referred to in the arbitration as the Copper Price Discount).

6 Clause 4 of the SPA provided that disputes in connection with the agreement were to be submitted to SIAC for arbitration, that the seat of the arbitration would be Singapore, and that the award of the arbitrator would be final and binding upon both parties, with arbitration fees to be borne by the losing party.

7 The respondent paid to the applicant two AUD instalments in July and September 2024, but it failed to make payment of the four USD instalments. The respondent indicated that it was having difficulty paying in USD, to which the applicant responded that it would accept payment in AUD-equivalent, but no payment was received.

8 The applicant subsequently initiated arbitration proceedings at SIAC in December 2024, claiming payment of the outstanding amounts owed under the SPA.

The arbitration

9 The respondent partially engaged in the arbitration process. In April 2025, it made a preliminary objection to jurisdiction and admissibility, which was rejected by the tribunal. Subsequently, the respondent engaged in correspondence with the applicant and the tribunal in the lead up to the making of the tribunal’s Procedural Order 1. The respondent also then filed a statement of defence and jurisdictional objection in June 2025, in response to the applicant’s statement of claim.

10 However, following the filing of its defence in June 2025, the respondent took no active steps in the arbitration. It did not appear at the hearing on 28 July 2025 and also did not file any post-hearing submissions or costs submissions.

11 The tribunal handed down its final award on 23 October 2025. The tribunal finally determined six issues in the award. First, it held that Singaporean law governed the SPA. Secondly, it rejected the respondent’s jurisdictional objection. Thirdly, it held that the applicant was entitled to the outstanding principal under the SPA and a pre-filing penalty of 0.1% of the unpaid amount for each day of the delay up to the date at which the arbitration proceeding was initiated (but dismissed the applicant’s claim for post-filing penalties and for pre-filing interest). Fourthly, the tribunal concluded that the applicant was not entitled to payment of the Copper Price Discount under cl 3 of the SPA. Fifthly, the tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to 80% of its costs. Sixthly, and finally, the tribunal granted relief by ordering the respondent to pay to the applicant the following sums:

(1) USD491,252.55 (being the outstanding principal under the SPA);

(2) USD90,272.70 (being the pre-filing penalty);

(3) SGD48,302.63 (being the costs of the arbitration);

(4) SGD1,600.00, RMB192,000.00 and HKD22,240.00 (being the applicant’s legal and other costs).

12 A certified copy of the award was sent to the parties, including the respondent, by email from SIAC on 23 October 2025. The evidence before the Court is that the awarded amounts remain unpaid.

Requirements for enforcement

13 I now turn to the various matters that the applicant must satisfy the Court of in order to have the award enforced under s 8(3) of the IAA.

14 The award is a “foreign award” (IAA s 8(1) read with s 3(1)). The award was made in Singapore, which is a country other than Australia. It is an arbitral award in relation to which the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, opened for signature 10 June 1958, 330 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 June 1959)), applies.

15 The award is also, on its face, binding on the parties, having not been set aside or suspended (IAA s 8(5)(f)).

16 Duly authenticated and certified copies of the documents mentioned in IAA s 9, being the award and the arbitration agreement, have been tendered, and I am satisfied as to the authenticity of those documents. Further, as mentioned above, the applicant’s solicitor has deposed to the fact that that the award has not been complied with, and has given evidence of the last known registered office of the respondent, which, along with email addresses which were used in communications with the tribunal, the applicant intends to use to provide notice to the respondent should the application be granted. In that regard, the requirements under FCR r 28.44 have been met.

17 Finally, there is no reason why the subject matter of the arbitration, being a claim for unpaid sums under a contract, is not capable of settlement by arbitration, and the parties to the arbitration agreement are the parties to the award.

18 The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration has the force of law in Singapore pursuant to s 3 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (Singapore). Article 34(3) of the Model Law provides that an application to set aside an arbitral award “may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the award”. As mentioned, the respondent received the award by email from SIAC on 23 October 2025. Thus, not only has the respondent not applied in Singapore, the seat of the arbitration, to set aside the award, but the time in which it might do so has long since elapsed. Moreover, the respondent has not communicated any basis upon which it might challenge the award or contend that it is not enforceable.

19 In accordance with its duty of candour on the ex parte application, the applicant has postulated some bases upon which the respondent might have contended that the award is not enforceable had it had notice of the enforcement application. None of these has any apparent merit, at least on the evidence currently before the Court.

20 The relief sought by the applicant is strictly in accordance with the award. While the sums in the award are expressed in various foreign currencies, it is appropriate that those sums be converted to AUD in circumstances where the award is sought to be enforced in an Australian court: Tianjin Jishengtai Investment Consulting Partnership Enterprise v Huang [2020] FCA 767 at [23] per Jagot J. It is further appropriate to convert the amounts in this case considering that the respondent has previously indicated difficulties paying in USD (see above at [7 ]). The applicant’s solicitor has provided evidence of exchange rate calculations for the relevant currencies as at the date four days prior to the hearing, which I accept (see Siemens WLL v BIC Contracting LLC [2022] FCA 1029 at [32]).

21 The applicant also seek post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate. The applicant did not seek post-award interest in the arbitration and therefore there is no ruling on it by the tribunal, one way or the other. Once the award is converted to an Australian judgment, post-judgment interest is earned as a matter of Australian law: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 52(2)(a) and FCR r 39.06. The award of such interest is not inconsistent with the award. This is to be distinguished from a situation where a tribunal has determined that a certain rate of interest, which differs from the post-judgment statutory rate, is to be applied from the date of the award until the date of payment: cf Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain (relief) [2025] FCA 1469 at [19]; Ripple Markets at [19]. In such a situation, for the Court to award post-judgment interest at the statutory rate would be inconsistent with the award.

22 In the circumstances, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to enter judgment against the respondent but to stay that judgment until the return day and to put the respondent on terms to file an application to set aside the judgment. If it does, then the stay will be extended until the final determination of that application, but if it does not, the stay will come to an end. See Hankuk Carbon Co Ltd v Energy World Corporation Ltd [2024] FCA 232 at [15]-[22].

23 For these reasons, I made the orders enforcing the award on 20 March 2026.

| I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Stewart. |
Associate:

Dated: 13 April 2026

Top