Abstract
On 7 August 2024, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd. In doing so, it held (contrary to existing practitioner consensus) that certain Australian proportionate liability laws apply in Australian domestic commercial arbitration. Existing analyses assess this case from an arbitration perspective. As this article shows, however, the case is really about private international law. This being so, this article critiques the High Court’s reasoning and also Tesseract’s existing commentaries from a private international law perspective. As arbitration is a dispute resolution process grounded in law, these critiques are offered in the service of helping Australian arbitration better secure its trade facilitation purposes.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 417-448 |
| Number of pages | 32 |
| Journal | Journal of Private International Law |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2025 |
Keywords
- applicable law
- arbitral award enforcement
- choice of law
- conflict of laws
- contents of laws
- domestic commercial arbitration
- international commercial arbitration
- jurisdiction
- mandatory law
- New York Convention on Arbitration
- UNCITRAL Model Law on Arbitration
Research output
- 1 Comment / Debate
-
Proportionate liability and arbitration
Hayward, B., Dec 2025, In: Contract and Commercial Law Review. 3, 3, p. 195-201 7 p.Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment / Debate › Other
Press/Media
-
Episode 6: Apportionment of Liability in Australian Arbitration
18/10/24
1 Media contribution
Press/Media: Blogs, Podcasts and Social Media › Podcasts
-
Tesseract: Don't Over-React! The High Court of Australia, Proportionate Liability, Arbitration, and Private International Law
19/08/24
1 Media contribution
Press/Media: Blogs, Podcasts and Social Media › Blogs
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver