Arbitration
Arbitration is the only form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in which a third-party decision-maker issues a binding award.
Unlike mediation or negotiation, an arbitrator (or an arbitral tribunal of three) hears the parties’ submissions and evidence and then issues a final and binding award, which is enforceable in much the same way as a court judgment.
In commercial practice, arbitration is not usually chosen after a dispute has arisen but is agreed in advance — the parties include an arbitration clause in their contract, providing that any disputes will be resolved by arbitration rather than by the courts.
This is especially common in cross-border commercial contracts, construction contracts, joint-venture agreements, and shipping and mining contracts. The Australian arbitration framework is built on two pieces of foundational legislation:
Both pieces of legislation are based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, with the result that the Australian arbitration regime is highly compatible with the major arbitration jurisdictions worldwide.
When NS Legal assists in arbitration matters, the focus is on helping clients understand the procedural structure of arbitration, assessing whether arbitration is suitable for the specific dispute, drafting or reviewing arbitration clauses, and providing representation at each stage of the arbitration process.
Domestic arbitration: the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) and its mirror Acts in other states;
International arbitration: the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).
What is Arbitration
Arbitration is a process by which the parties submit their dispute to an independent private arbitrator (or to an arbitral tribunal of three arbitrators), who hears the evidence, reviews the documents and the parties’ submissions, and then issues a binding award.
The key features of arbitration are:
| Consent-based | the right to arbitrate derives from the parties’ agreement (usually an arbitration clause in a contract); without agreement, there is no arbitration; |
|---|---|
| Third-party decision-maker | unlike a mediator, an arbitrator has the power to issue a binding award rather than merely assist negotiations; |
| Final awards | an arbitral award has enforceability similar to a court judgment and is generally not open to appeal on the merits; |
| Procedural flexibility | the parties may agree on the procedural rules (institutional rules or bespoke rules), the seat of arbitration, the language, and the applicable law; |
| Confidentiality | unlike court proceedings, which are generally public, arbitration proceedings are usually private. |
The critical distinction between arbitration and mediation is decision-making authority — the mediator does not decide; the arbitrator does.
Legal Framework
The Australian arbitration regime consists of two parallel legal frameworks: Domestic arbitration (both parties’ seat is within Australia):
- Governed by the various state Commercial Arbitration Acts. In New South Wales this is the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW). Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the two Territories each have their own “mirror” Act, with substantially identical content;
- The Acts are based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the 2010 reform produced a unified national framework.
International arbitration (involving cross-border elements):
- Governed by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), which is Commonwealth legislation;
- This Act incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law into Australian law and implements the 1958 New York Convention and the 1965 Washington Convention (ICSID Convention);
- The parties may agree to exclude certain provisions of the Model Law and may elect to apply institutional rules.
The two frameworks are highly aligned in relation to procedure, the effect of awards, and grounds for setting aside.
The principal differences are in the enforcement mechanism for international awards (which relies on the New York Convention) and in the interpretation of arbitration clauses.
When Parties Use Arbitration
Arbitration is commonly used in the following circumstances:
- Commercial contracts with arbitration clauses: this is the most common situation. Where a contract expressly provides for disputes to be resolved by arbitration, the other party can apply to the court to stay any proceedings commenced in breach of that clause so that the dispute is transferred to arbitration;
- Construction disputes: small to medium disputes are usually resolved through the rapid adjudication regime under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act; larger disputes or those involving complex legal issues are more often dealt with by arbitration;
- International commercial disputes: in cross-border transactions, arbitration is the established dispute resolution mechanism — one of the key reasons being that arbitral awards can, through the New York Convention, be recognised and enforced in over 170 countries with relative ease;
- Particular industries: contracts in mining, shipping, joint ventures and energy almost universally contain arbitration clauses;
- Certain sports and commercial bodies: the constitutions of some industry associations or sports bodies require member disputes to be resolved by arbitration.
By contrast, consumer disputes, employment disputes and family law disputes are usually dealt with through specialised tribunals (such as NCAT, the FWC and the FCFCOA), and arbitration is rarely used in these areas.
Choosing an Arbitral Institution
Arbitration may be institutional (administered by an arbitral institution) or ad hoc (without institutional administration).
Institutional arbitration is by far the most common, because the institution provides rules, administration, panels of arbitrators and appointment services. Institutions commonly used in Australian arbitration practice include:
- Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) — Australia’s leading international arbitration institution, most commonly used for international commercial matters seated in Australia, with the ACICA Arbitration Rules (latest version 2021);
- Resolution Institute Australia — a long-established Australian ADR institution that has absorbed the business of the former IAMA (Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia), commonly used for domestic commercial arbitration;
- ICC International Court of Arbitration — headquartered in Paris, applying the ICC Arbitration Rules, the most widely used international arbitration institution worldwide, commonly seen in cross-border contracts;
- LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) — an international arbitration institution seated in London, with rigorous procedural rules, commonly used for complex commercial disputes under common-law influenced systems;
- SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) and HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) — leading international arbitration institutions in the Asia-Pacific, commonly used by Australian parties for business in China and South-East Asia.
When selecting an institution, considerations include: the seat, the applicability of the institutional rules, the institution’s capacity to appoint arbitrators, the institution’s fee structure, and compatibility with the applicable law.
Choosing the Arbitrator(s)
The arbitral tribunal may consist of a single arbitrator or three arbitrators. In commercial arbitration:
- Sole arbitrator: suitable for matters with smaller amounts in dispute and simpler facts, where cost is lower and the procedure is faster;
- Three-member tribunal: suitable for matters with larger amounts in dispute, complex facts, or highly specialised subject matter. Typically each party appoints one arbitrator, and those two arbitrators jointly appoint the presiding arbitrator.
When selecting an arbitrator, the following factors are usually weighed:
| Subject-matter expertise | is specialist knowledge required (for example construction, mining, shipping or intellectual property)? |
|---|---|
| Legal qualifications | is qualification in a particular jurisdiction required? |
| Procedural experience | experienced arbitrators are usually more efficient; |
| Availability | whether the arbitrator’s schedule fits the parties’ timetable; |
| Neutrality and disclosure | the arbitrator must disclose any conflict of interest that could affect impartiality. |
Arbitrators may be appointed by direct agreement between the parties, or through the institution. In ad hoc arbitration, if the parties cannot agree, the court may appoint the arbitrator under s 11 of the CAA.
Need clear, practical legal advice?
Arbitration Procedure
While arbitration is procedurally flexible, the process usually follows this structure: 1.
Request for Arbitration / Notice of Arbitration: the claimant serves a request on the respondent and the institution, setting out a summary of the dispute, the relief sought, and the appointed arbitrator (if applicable); 2.
Statement of Defence / Counterclaim: the respondent files a defence within the prescribed time and may file a counterclaim; 3.
Constitution of the tribunal: the arbitrators are appointed under the arbitration agreement or the institutional rules, and the tribunal is formally constituted; 4.
Procedural orders / Terms of Reference: the tribunal convenes the first procedural conference and works with the parties to fix the timetable, the document production protocol, witness statements, and expert reports; 5.
Statement of Claim / Statement of Defence: the parties file full written submissions with supporting documents; 6.
Document production: compared with court litigation, “discovery” in arbitration is usually narrower, often modelled on the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration; 7.
Witness statements and expert reports: exchanged within the prescribed time; 8. Hearing: the tribunal conducts an oral hearing at which the parties make submissions and cross-examine witnesses and experts; 9.
Closing submissions and award: after closing submissions, the tribunal issues a written award setting out the findings of fact, the legal analysis, and the outcome.
The duration of the proceedings depends on the matter — simple matters take 6-12 months, while complex international matters may take 2-3 years.
Binding Nature of Awards
Once issued, an arbitral award is final and binding on the parties. This is one of the most fundamental differences between arbitration and mediation.
In relation to the binding nature of awards, the following points should be understood:
- No appeal on the merits: under the CAA framework and the International Arbitration Act, there is no right of appeal on the substantive merits (legal or factual findings) — a point of striking contrast with the court system, where judgments are open to appeal;
- Limited grounds for setting aside: under s 34 of the CAA (corresponding to Article 34 of the Model Law), an arbitral award may be set aside by the court only on limited grounds, namely:
- a party was under some incapacity at the time of the arbitration agreement, or the arbitration agreement was not valid under the applicable law;
- a party was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present the case;
- the award deals with a dispute not submitted to arbitration, or contains decisions beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
- the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure was contrary to the parties’ agreement or the applicable law;
- the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Australian law;
- the award is contrary to the public policy of Australia;
- Resistance to enforcement: at the enforcement stage, the party against whom enforcement is sought may also resist on the same grounds (under s 36 of the CAA / Article 36 of the Model Law).
An application to set aside an award must be made to the court of competent jurisdiction (usually the Supreme Court of the relevant state) within 3 months of the award being delivered.
Enforcement of Awards
The enforcement mechanism for arbitral awards is one of the core advantages of arbitration.
Domestic awards: a domestic arbitral award made in New South Wales may be enforced under s 35 of the CAA by application to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which will generally recognise and enforce the award unless one of the grounds in s 36 is established.
Once enforced, the award has the same effect as a judgment of the court and may be enforced through the usual enforcement mechanisms (writs of execution, garnishee orders, third-party debt notices and so on).
Foreign awards: Australia is a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and incorporates the Convention into domestic law through the International Arbitration Act 1974.
This means that —
- arbitral awards made in other Convention signatory states can be recognised and enforced in Australia with relative ease;
- arbitral awards made in Australia can be recognised and enforced in over 170 Convention signatory states.
This is the key advantage of arbitration over court litigation — cross-border enforcement of Australian court judgments must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, whereas arbitral awards are, by reason of the New York Convention framework, generally enforceable in major markets worldwide.
Costs
The cost structure of arbitration usually includes the following components:
- Arbitrator fees: arbitrators usually charge on an hourly basis, with senior arbitrators charging AUD 500-1000+ per hour; the fees of a three-member tribunal are approximately 2.5-3 times those of a sole arbitrator;
- Institutional fees: arbitral institutions typically charge administrative fees on a sliding scale based on the amount in dispute;
- Hearing room and equipment fees: including meeting rooms, video equipment, and transcription services;
- Legal representation fees: each party’s own legal fees, usually the largest component of total arbitration costs;
- Expert witness fees: where the matter requires expert evidence on specialist issues.
By comparison, arbitration usually has a higher upfront cost than mediation (because arbitrators must be paid and the institution charges administrative fees), but a lower total cost than full court litigation (because the process is faster, document production is narrower, and there is little scope for appeal).
As to allocation of costs, the arbitral tribunal generally has power under s 33B of the CAA to make a costs award, applying principles such as “costs follow the event” or apportionment based on the parties’ relative conduct.
Confidentiality
Another important feature of arbitration is confidentiality. This is in marked contrast to the general principle that court proceedings are public.
Under sections 23C to 23G of the CAA (introduced by the 2010 reform), the confidentiality obligations in relation to arbitral proceedings and associated material include:
- the arbitral proceedings themselves (hearings, documents and evidence) may not be disclosed without the parties’ consent;
- the tribunal, the parties and their representatives owe confidentiality obligations in respect of materials produced in the proceedings;
- in certain statutory exceptions (for example to enforce an award, to set aside an award, to satisfy regulatory requirements or to protect a legitimate interest), the relevant information may be disclosed.
This confidentiality protection is particularly important in matters involving trade secrets, patent information, commercial relationships or reputationally sensitive issues.
Trade-offs vs Litigation
The decision to choose arbitration must be weighed at the contract drafting stage or in the early stages of a dispute, considering a range of factors: Advantages of arbitration:
- Confidentiality: proceedings and awards are generally not public, protecting commercially sensitive information;
- Cross-border enforceability: global enforcement through the New York Convention, significantly better than court judgments;
- Procedural flexibility: the parties can agree the seat, the language, the applicable law, and the procedural rules;
- Choice of arbitrator: parties may appoint arbitrators with specialist expertise;
- Faster procedure: usually concludes faster than court litigation.
Disadvantages of arbitration:
- No appeal on the merits: once an award is issued, even legal errors are difficult to overturn;
- Narrow document production: compared with full discovery in court litigation, document exchange in arbitration is more limited;
- High upfront costs: arbitrator and institutional fees are borne by the parties, whereas court litigation is publicly funded;
- Limited coercive powers: the tribunal cannot directly compel witnesses to attend or seize property and must rely on court assistance;
- Difficulty joining third parties: arbitration is consent-based, and it is difficult to bring third parties outside the contract into the proceedings.
These trade-offs should usually be considered at the contract drafting stage (rather than after a dispute arises), because once an arbitration clause is included in the contract, it is difficult to change the dispute resolution pathway after the event.
How We Can Help
Arbitration matters generally share several common features: the procedural rules are relatively complex, the interpretation of the arbitration clause is critical, and where cross-border elements are involved, multiple jurisdictions must be coordinated.
In this context, the NS Legal dispute resolution team can provide specialist support at each stage of the arbitration process. We are typically able to assist clients to:
- at the contract drafting stage, draft or review arbitration clauses, including key elements such as the seat, the institution, the rules, the language, the number of arbitrators, and the applicable law;
- in the early stages of a dispute, assess whether the arbitration clause is triggered, advise on whether to commence arbitration, pursue mediation, or first seek interim measures;
- draft and serve the Request for Arbitration, and prepare full written submissions and supporting evidence;
- in the arbitral proceedings, represent the client at the constitution of the tribunal, procedural conferences, hearings, cross-examination and closing submissions;
- coordinate expert witnesses, prepare expert reports, and prepare witness statements and cross-examination strategy;
- after an award is issued, assist with enforcement (in Australia or, via the New York Convention, overseas), or resist applications by the other side to set aside or refuse enforcement of the award;
- where appropriate, coordinate the interface with litigation or other ADR processes, for example attempting mediation first before progressing to arbitration.
Our goal is to provide clients with clear strategic advice at every key juncture in the arbitration process, ensure that the process is properly advanced, and prepare for enforcement or resistance after an award is issued.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between arbitration and mediation?
The core difference is decision-making authority. A mediator does not decide — the role is to assist the parties to negotiate an agreement; if no agreement is reached, the mediation ends and the parties may still pursue other avenues. An arbitrator decides — after hearing the parties’ submissions and evidence, the arbitrator issues a binding award with enforceability similar to a court judgment. Arbitration is therefore a more “quasi-judicial” process, while mediation is closer to structured negotiation.
Can arbitration be chosen later, if no arbitration clause was agreed?
Yes, but the parties must enter into a separate submission agreement / arbitration agreement after the dispute has arisen. Once a dispute has crystallised and one side is already inclined to litigate, it is often difficult to persuade the other to agree to arbitration. That is why arbitration clauses are usually included at the contract drafting stage — agreeing in advance is much easier than negotiating after the event.
Can an arbitral award be appealed?
Generally, no. Under the Australian CAA and International Arbitration Act framework, an arbitral award is not open to appeal on the merits (whether legal or factual findings). The only way to challenge the award is to apply to set aside under s 34 of the CAA, but the grounds are extremely narrow (procedural irregularity, exceeding the scope of the arbitration, contrary to public policy and so on) and do not include “error of law”. This is the key distinction between arbitration and court litigation — the trade-off is “finality” in exchange for efficiency and certainty.
How do arbitration costs compare with court costs?
It depends on the nature of the matter. The general rule is:
Simpler matters: the upfront costs of arbitration (arbitrator and institutional fees) are higher than for court proceedings, but total costs may be similar
Complex larger matters: arbitration usually costs less than full litigation, because the procedure is faster, document production is narrower, and the appellate scope is limited
International matters: the cross-border enforcement advantage of arbitration (through the New York Convention) more than offsets any other cost differences
Arbitration costs are usually allocated by the tribunal applying “costs follow the event” or a similar principle.
What if the contract contains an arbitration clause but the other side insists on going to court?
Under s 8 of the CAA (corresponding to Article 8 of the Model Law), where a party promptly invokes the arbitration clause after the other party commences proceedings, the court must stay the proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is void or incapable of performance. Accordingly, if you receive notice of court proceedings, action to invoke the arbitration clause should be taken immediately, or you may be taken to have waived your right to arbitrate. NS Legal can assist with the application to invoke the arbitration clause.
Need legal advice? Talk to NS Legal
We give clear, practical advice that helps you make sounder decisions in complex situations.
