In Cargill Australia Limited v Oroonoka Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 620, the New South Wales Supreme Court enforced an arbitral award against the defendant after the plaintiff had proven all the necessary requirements for enforcement of the award.

In a brief judgment, Justice Hammerschlag identified that section 33(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (Act) provides that a court may enforce an arbitral award as a judgment of the court and therefore, judgment may be entered in terms of the award. Hammerschlag J reviewed the evidence and confirmed that the contract between the parties contained an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement referred disputes to arbitration in accordance with the National Agricultural Commodities Marketing Association Limited (NACMA) Trade and Arbitration Rules current at the date of the contract.

The evidence before the court included the claim and other pleadings in the arbitration. An arbitral award was ultimately made in favour of the plaintiff. Apart from noting this evidence, the court did not review the merits or details of the award.

An issue was raised concerning service on the defendants. This was resolved by evidence shown to the court of a letter sent to the plaintiff from the firm of solicitors acting for the defendants, which demonstrated that the defendants were aware of the proceedings.

The court was therefore satisfied that the requirements of the Act had been met. The court granted leave to enforce the arbitral award and entered judgment for the amount of the award (AUS$362,257.30), plus interest from the date of the award and costs.

The efficiency and brevity of this case demonstrates the stance adopted by modern Australian courts to support arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism.