The Court granted enforcement of an arbitral award rendered by the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) in a dispute that arose in respect of an agreement (the CDA) for the development of an elder-care facility in PR China. (1) The Court dismissed the contention that enforcement would be contrary to Australian public policy, explaining that the courts of PR China, the courts with supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration, had heard and rejected the respondents’ argument that the arbitral award was fundamentally unfair because in ordering the rescission of the CDA, the arbitral tribunal had made no provision for returning the parties to the position they had been in prior to entering into the CDA. It would therefore be “inappropriate”, explained the Court, for an enforcement court to reach a different conclusion on the same question from that of the supervisory court at the seat of the arbitration. The Court held that it was clear from its review of the arbitration proceedings that the arbitral tribunals had dealt with the dispute before it, which concerned the provision and repayment of loans pursuant to the CDA. It then dismissed the argument that the arbitral tribunal had erred in failing to make any order concerning the re-conveyance of shares that would have restored the parties to the situation they had been in prior to the CDA, noting that no such request had been made in the arbitration proceedings. Furthermore, according to the Court, the tribunal had not erred in not providing for re-conveyance of shares, because to do so would have implicated the interests of an entity that was not a party to the CDA, and possibly would have involved the dissolution of separate agreements to which the present claimant (the respondent in the arbitration) was not a party. In addition, explained the Court, the award debtors were not foreclosed by the arbitration from applying to the relevant court in PR China for an order on whether they could demand the restitution of shares. (2) As to whether the arbitration agreement and award submitted in the proceedings had been duly certified or authenticated, the Court rejected the respondents’ contention that a court in enforcement proceedings exercised a quasi-administrative function, and was therefore required, pursuant to Sub-sect. 9(1) of the Australia International Arbitration Act (IAA), to verify the authenticity of the documents. The Court explained that enforcement of an award is not an administrative function but the exercise of a judicial power. Moreover, the respondents had not argued that the documents were not what they purported to be, and the Court was satisfied that the copies submitted to it had been duly authenticated and certified, as they bore the stamps of the BAC and the seals and signatures of the parties. (3) The Court also held that it was not necessary that a translation be certified by a diplomatic or consular agent in Australia of the country where the award was made, as the IAA clearly granted the court the discretion to accept other forms of certification.