The domestic arbitration legislation in Australia, often referred to as the "common form Commercial Arbitration Acts", provides:

Previous authorities (that is, South Australian Superannuation Fund Investment Trust v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (1990) 55 SASR 327) had suggested that section 47 granted the courts a supervisory jurisdiction over interlocutory orders in arbitrations.

In this case an arbitrator had refused to adjourn an arbitration hearing without first holding a directions hearing. The plaintiff asked the court to intervene to secure an adjournment of the arbitration hearing for approximately one week. The plaintiff relied on section 47 of the Act and the court's inherent jurisdiction to intervene in an arbitration to prevent an injustice.

Justice Croft indicated some caution as to whether the court's inherent jurisdiction was excluded by the Act. Ultimately he held that in the event that there was any inherent jurisdiction, it would only be exercised in the most unusual circumstances given the comprehensive provisions of the Act. Further, His Honour held that there was no jurisdiction to intervene arising from section 47.

In addition, His Honour said that, even if he was wrong and the court did have power, he would not intervene, having regard to the nature of the interlocutory order and there being no reason to doubt the veracity of the arbitrator's reasons for refusing an adjournment.

There have been a growing number of statements from the judiciary, albeit in domestic arbitration matters, that the Australian courts will be very reluctant to interfere in the arbitral process. As the domestic arbitration legislation envisages a greater role for the judiciary than the international arbitration legislation, this reluctance to interfere should be even greater in an international arbitration.

The recent approach of the courts suggests a growing awareness of, and support for, arbitration from the Australian judiciary.