It is an arbitral award made in HK, and now registered for...

It is an arbitral award made in HK, and now registered for enforcement in Australia. The ASE picked up on the registration. The registration order was made on 12 March at a Federal court somewhere in Australia. EWC had til 12 April to set it aside and have not done so. The release does not state in which State the Federal judgment was obtained - but it is only a procedural matter to expand the order to all states should that be a requirement. When I register judgments in Australia I typically have to register them in the state in which I intend to enforce.

Hankuk can now start enforcing the order.

The various methods of enforcement include:

• writ / warrant for seizure and sale of property
• order for possession of land or delivery of goods
• charging order (eg. charge over shares or money in a financial institution)
• redirection / attachment / garnishee of debts or earnings / instalment order
• enforcement hearing / oral examination / means of inquiry.
• 
  

EWC seems to be saying there is a counter suit/claim. Unfortunately it also seems that EWC does not have an award or judgment confirming this to be the case. Successful counter suit for money claims tend to be set off against the original claim. That delivery is still required by EWC may mean they have not liquefied the claim, but require performance of the contract.

If I were Hankuk, I will have secured my judgment claim to the Seaforth property, or to the Aussie gasfields and equipment already if possible. Having secured the property for sale by the bailiff puts the judgment creditor in a strong negotiating position because any negotiation is about how to prevent the bailiff selling everything. But maybe Hankuk are not me. It is possible that separate corporate personalities prevent a judgment against SE, or EWC, being enforced against assets owned by a subsidiary - but there are ways to peel the onion.