Journal of International Arbitration 24(5): 515–528, 2007. © 2007 Kluwer Law International. Printed in The Netherlands. Enforcement of Arbitral Awards where the Seat of the Arbitration is Australia How the Eisenwerk Decision Might Still be a Sleeping Assassin Enforcement of Arbitral Awards where the Seat of the Arbitration is Australia Stephen Barrett-White* and Christopher Kee** Journal of International Arbitration Michael Moser Dominique Hascher Journal of International Arbitration Volume 24 Issue 5 2007 This article examines the enforcement of foreign awards in Australia. It identifies and explains the difference between a “foreign award” and “international arbitration award,” observing it is a somewhat surprising but potentially significant distinction. The article then moves to consider the consequences of the distinction with particular reference to the Australian arbitral landscape. Australia has dual arbitration regimes operating at the state and federal level. Particular attention is given to the still controversial Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Australian Granites Ltd. v. Eisenwerk Hensel Bayreyth Dipl-Ing Burkhardt GmbH .The article concludes by promoting a line of interpretation that will effectively allow subsequent courts to avoid the potentially disastrous effects the Eisenwerk decision may yet still wreak. I. Introduction Over recent years there has been an increasing awareness in Australia of arbitration as the preferred method of dispute resolution in international transactions and a growing push to promote Sydney as an arbitral venue. In light of the growing number of arbitra- tion clauses being included in international contracts naming Sydney (or other Australian cities) as the seat for the arbitration of any disputes that do arise, it is important that we consider how an award handed down in such an arbitration is to be enforced in Australia. Part II of this article examines the enforcement of foreign awards in Australia. It identifies and explains the difference between a “foreign award” and “international arbitration award.” It is a somewhat surprising but potentially significant distinction. In Part III we then move our consideration to the consequences of the distinction with particular reference to the Australian arbitral landscape. Australia has dual arbitration regimes operating at the state and federal level. It is here that the Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Australian Granites Ltd. v. Eisenwerk Hensel Bayreyth Dipl-Ing Burkhardt GmbH 1 could deliver another poison pill to international arbitration in Australia. The article concludes by promoting a line of interpretation that will effectively allow subsequent courts to avoid the potentially disastrous effects of the Eisenwerk decision. * Stephen Barrett-White is Corporate Counsel (Major Projects/Construction) for United Group Ltd. and a Committee Member of ACICA (Stephen.barrett-white@unitedgroupltd.com). The views expressed in this article are those of the author only and not of his employer or ACICA. ** Christopher Kee is a consultant at Keelins, a Lecturer at Deakin University and a Special Associate of ACICA (christopher.kee@deakin.edu.au).The views expressed in this article are those of the author only and not of his firm, ACICA or Deakin University. 1 [2001] 1 Qd R. 461.