The review of Australia's International Arbitration Act, which commenced in 2008, was completed in 2010 ahead of the federal elections (see Legal update, Australia advances arbitral law reform). The concurrent jurisdiction for the Federal Court was passed in 2009, and in July 2010 the more substantive changes to the Act included:

These changes have modernised and, in some cases, altered the law established by certain judicial decisions, the effects of which were considered to be out of step with good international arbitration practice. In passing the law, the stated intention of the Federal Attorney-General was to establish Australia as an international centre for the resolution of international commercial disputes.

In May 2010, Australian ministers agreed to implement a model Commercial Arbitration Bill to replace the previous domestic arbitration regime (which consisted of separate State and Territory Acts across Australia) (see Legal update, Australia to get new domestic arbitration legislation). In October 2010, the new Commercial Arbitration Act entered in force in New South Wales and is now pending in Tasmania. It is expected to be brought into force in the other Australian states in 2011 (see Anticipated developments for 2011 below).

The Commercial Arbitration Act, like the international law, is based on the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law. Previously Australia had two separate and different systems of arbitration law - one for international and one for domestic arbitration. While the two systems remain distinct, they each now have precise and independent areas of operation and are now subject to substantially the same harmonised system with only certain differences reflecting the domestic nature of the legislation.

Provisions which apply only to domestic arbitration include:

The Australian International Disputes Centre opened in Sydney in early August 2010. The centre is a joint initiative of the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments, the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) and the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre (ACDC). While it is not Australia's first arbitration centre, the centre is promoted as the first centre for international arbitration in Australia. Michelle Sindler, an experienced arbitral practitioner who has appeared as counsel and mediator in disputes in Europe and Asia, has been appointed chief executive officer. The Honourable Trevor Morling QC, a retired Federal Court judge, arbitrator and mediator, has been appointed as its inaugural chairman.

The centre is located in the heart of Sydney. The new hearing facility features ten custom built rooms, including a large 27-person hearing room, and is equipped with state-of-the-art video conferencing technology and access to translation and transcription services. Its website, provides further details and pricing.

It is intended that the new centre, in conjunction with the legislative changes, will assist Australia in building its profile and reputation in international arbitration.

In 2011, it is expected that the new Commercial Arbitration Act will enter into force in all, or at least most, of the remaining States and Territories, completing the process of aligning the domestic and international arbitration Acts. There has been an indication that the other States and Territories will follow the example of New South Wales but with the intervention of elections in some States, for example, Victoria, Tasmania is the only other State that has actually advanced the process as far as a Bill.

The coming year should provide the opportunity and time needed for the process to be completed across Australia.

When it was handed down, the decision in Oil Basins Ltd v BHP Billiton Ltd [2007] VSCA 255 attracted significant attention and criticism among Australian arbitral practitioners. In that case, the Victorian Supreme Court appeared to equate the standard of reasons required in an arbitration with that of a common law court.

In Gordian Runoff Ltd v Westport Insurance Corporation [2010] NSWCA 57, the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that if the court in Oil Basins had held that judges and arbitrators should be held to the same standard of reasoning, then that decision was wrong and should not be followed in New South Wales (see Legal update, Three Australian courts rule on standard of reasons required in awards).

This inconsistency has led the High Court of Australia (Australia's final court of appeal) to grant special leave to appeal (see Legal update, Leave to appeal granted in the Gordian Runoff case). The appeal is expected to be heard by the High Court in 2011 and the decision will determine which of the approaches in Oil Basins and Gordian Runoff is to be preferred. The forthcoming appeal has attracted the attention of the mainstream press and of Australia's arbitral bodies which have indicated that they will seek to intervene as amicii curiae in the hearing before the High Court to support the approach of the court in Gordian Runoff.

A decision of the High Court will hopefully resolve the correct approach on the issue once and for all.

Speaking at a conference in October 2010, the Attorney-General indicated that he proposed to appoint the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) as an appointing authority under the International Arbitration Act where the parties could not agree upon the appointment of an arbitrator.

Previously only a court could perform this role but the Attorney-General indicated ACICA as an appropriate body to appoint arbitrators and has said that he would be recommending this change to take place. Further details are expected to follow. In the meantime, a list of potential arbitrators – the ACICA panel (the ACICA Fellows also constitute the ACICA Panel of Arbitrators) - is available on the ACICA website.