Views
Tesseract: Don’t Over-React! The High Court of Australia, Proportionate Liability, Arbitration, and Private International Law
By Dr Benjamin Hayward
Associate Professor, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash Business School
X: @LawGuyPI, @MonashITICL
On 7 August 2024, the High Court of Australia handed down its long-awaited decision in Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 24. The dispute arose out of a domestic commercial arbitration seated in South Australia, where the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (SA) is the relevant lex arbitri. That Act is a domestically focused adaptation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (with its 2006 amendments).
The respondent to the arbitration sought to rely upon proportionate liability legislation found in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA) and in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The High Court was asked to determine whether those proportionate liability regimes could be applied in the arbitration. A very practical difficulty arose here, reflected in Steward J noting (in dissent) that the High Court was ‘faced with an invidious choice’: see [228]. Were the proportionate liability laws not to apply in the arbitration, the respondent might find themselves liable for 100% of the applicant’s loss, when they would not be liable to that same extent in court proceedings applying the same body of South Australian law. But were the proportionate liability laws to apply, the applicant might find themselves able to recover only a portion of their loss in the arbitration, and might then have to then pursue court proceedings against another third party wrongdoer to recover the rest: given that joinder is not possible in arbitration without consent. Read more
First Thai Monetary Judgment Enforced in China, Highlighting Presumptive Reciprocity in China-ASEAN Region
This post is kindly provided by Dr. Meng Yu, lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law, and co-founder of China Justice Observer.
Key Takeaways:
- In June 2024, the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area Nanning International Commercial Tribunal under the Nanning Railway Transportation Intermediate Court in Guangxi ruled to recognize and enforce a Thai monetary judgment (Guangxi Nanning China Travel Service, Ltd. v. Orient Thai Airlines Co., Ltd. (2023) Gui 71 Xie Wai Ren No. 1).
- Apart from being the first case of enforcing Thai monetary judgments in China, it is also the first publicly reported case confirming a reciprocal relationship based on “presumptive reciprocity”.
- The Chinese court’s confirmation that “presumptive reciprocity”, as outlined in the Nanning Statement, is a form of mutual consensus between China and ASEAN countries helps to promote the circulation of judgments within the China-ASEAN region.
News
The Procedural Law Unit at the University of Nicosia’s 5th Annual Symposium and JIWP 2025 Conference: “Judicial Independence and Liberal Democracy Under Threat: The Challenge of Implementing the ELI Mt Scopus Standards on Judicial Independence”
A symposium on “Judicial Independence and Liberal Democracy Under Threat: The Challenge of Implementing the ELI Mt Scopus Standards on Judicial Independence” will take place from 10 to 12 December 2025 at the University of Nicosia. The event is organised by the Procedural Law Unit in cooperation with the International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace (JIWP) and will be held at the UNESCO Amphitheatre.
Registration Open – Book Launch: The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Commentary
Registration is open for the book launch celebrating the publication of The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Commentary, to be held in hybrid format in The Hague on 11 December 2025 from 1.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. (CET). The book launch will coincide with the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention.
The book launch will consist of two session. In the first session, the authors and discussants will explore selected chapters of the book. Brooke Marshall (University of Oxford) and Stephanie Francq (Catholic University of Louvain) will discuss the manifest injustice and public policy exception in Article 6 of the Convention; Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University) and Fausto Pocar (University of Milan) will discuss declarations under Articles 21 and 22 and accommodating multiple legal systems; and Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg, EAPIL) and Adrian Briggs KC (University of Oxford) will discuss the law applicable to the issue of consent to choice of court agreements. The second session of the event will discuss the practical operation of the Convention and the practical application of the text, with the participation of Delphia Lim (Ministry of Law of Singapore), Colin Seouw (Colin Seouw Chambers LLC), and Anselmo Reyes (Singapore International Commercial Court). Dr Christophe Bernasconi (HCCH) will provide opening remarks, and Melissa Ford and Dr Ning Zhao (HCCH) will moderate the discussions.
For more information, and to register, please visit: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/choice-of-court/hcch-book-launch
This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).
Fourth Issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2025
The fourth issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2025 has recently been published. It contains the following articles, cases notes and book review.
Michael Howard, “The True History of the Origin of the Mareva Injunction or Freezing Order”
Fifty years ago, in 1975, a revolutionary innovation occurred in English procedural law, the introduction of what is officially named the freezing injunction, formerly and to some extent even now known as the Mareva injunction. It was the consequence of two decisions of the Commercial Court, the Karageorgis and Mareva cases. The thesis of this article, lightly camouflaged, is that these cases and this change were brought about by a combination of four factors which are present in most such developments of the common law: the personal, the institutional, the technical legal and the accidental. It is an attempt to present all of them and to show that the first and particularly the last were disproportionately large contributors.
Masood Ahmed, “State Immunity and the New York Convention”
Adrian Briggs, “Book Review of Hong Kong Private International Law” (by Wilson Lui and Anselmo Reyes)
My views
I read the interesting—but in my view unconvincing—critical review by Emeritus Professor Adrian Briggs of “Private International Law in Hong Kong” (by Wilson Lui and Anselmo Reyes). My reading of the review is that Briggs laments the authors’ limited engagement with English sources, suggesting that because Hong Kong’s private international law is not as fully developed as Singapore’s, English texts and cases should operate as gap-fillers.
I take a different view. I am pleased to see Asian private international law scholars asserting a more autonomous and context-sensitive approach to developing their conflict-of-laws rules. That intellectual independence is healthy for the discipline, and it is precisely the direction I believe African private international law should pursue.