Guidance between the Federal Court of Australia and the DFCC

On 28 March 2014, the Honourable James Allsop AO, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia (“the Federal Court”) and Michael Hwang SC, Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (“the DIFCC”) signed a Memorandum of Guidance between the Federal Court and the DIFCC (“the Memorandum”).

The purpose of the Memorandum is to set out the two Courts’ understanding of the procedure for enforcement of money judgments in each. Whilst it has no binding legal effect, the Courts are of the view that the Memorandum will promote a mutual understanding and guidance of their laws and judicial processes, and will improve public perception and understanding. Commentators opine that the Memorandum will enhance the confidence of businesses with interests in the two jurisdictions.

 Following a similar agreement between the DIFCC and New South Wales Supreme Court in September 2013, the Memorandum’s main features are as follows:

  1. confirms that both Courts will enforce one another’s judgments by claims made at common law;
  2. both Courts require that the judgments to be enforced are final and conclusive, although can be subject to appeal;
  3. there are some judgments that neither Court will enforce, like judgments ordering the payment of taxes, fines or penalties;
  4. both Courts must deem the other to have had jurisdiction to determine the subject matter of the proceedings, as according to their own laws on conflict of laws;
  5. both Courts will only allow challenge of the other’s judgment on limited grounds;
  6. neither court will re-examine the merits of the other’s judgment;
  7. the procedure for enforcement in each Court is detailed.

Where enforcement is successful, the judgment creditor will have the benefit of a judgment in either of the Courts.William Roberts Lawyers can attend to enforcement in either jurisdiction for its clients.

Related News

What happens if you, as an insurer, have not yet concluded whether or not to indemnify an insured, and a third party commences Court proceedings against your insured (with the indemnity decision still pending)?

When these types of claims arise, an insurer (and its panel firm) can continue to act for an insured on a “reservation of rights” basis.

Read More

Can you sue if a “registered” company is “in liquidation”, “under administration” or has become “deregistered”? 

It is common to see Court proceedings commenced in the name of an individual or against an individual.   But sometimes, Court proceedings are commenced by

Read More

The Briginshaw-test

Did you know that the Briginshaw-test requires a higher standard of evidence in civil matters where serious allegations are made, such as fraud. This principle

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

Stay informed

Keep up-to-date with our regular news and insights

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
William Roberts Lawyers


Level 22
66 Goulburn Street


Level 21
535 Bourke Street


Level 8
300 Ann Street


Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place