What follows is a comment which covers a cluster of miscellaneous developments in Australia which may be of interest.

The Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Commonwealth) was proclaimed to apply from 1 April 1986 (with the exception of s. 18(2) which is a provision intended to be compatible with forthcoming Commonwealth admiralty jurisdiction legislation, dealing as it does with an action in rem against a sister ship). The Act is a complete code on this subject. A foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of the Courts of Australia in a proceeding except as is provided for by or under the Act. The legislation sets out a number of circumstances in which a foreign state may not be immune. Of particular interest are provisions dealing with commercial transactions under which there is no immunity in a proceeding insofar as it concerns such a transaction. This is defined to mean “a commercial trading business professional or industrial or like transaction into which the foreign State has entered”, or a like activity in which the state has engaged; and without limiting that definition includes a contract for the supply of goods or services, an agreement for a loan or some other transaction for or in respect of the provision of finance and a guarantee or indemnity in respect of a financial obligation, but does not include a contract of employment or a bill of exchange.

If a foreign state has agreed to submit a dispute to arbitration, then that state is not immune in a proceeding for an exercise of any court jurisdiction in respect of that arbitration.

There has been a significant increase in recent years in the participation of shipping lines owned by foreign states, especially centrally-planned economies, in Australia’s liner trades. The provisions of the legislation relating to actions in rem are therefore of considerable interest. Under s. 18, a foreign state is not immune in a proceeding commenced as an action in rem against a ship if at the time when the cause of action arose the ship was in use for commercial purposes. The reference to commercial purposes in this section is amplified in the provisions of the legislation dealing with enforcement against commercial property. Under s. 32 the general immunity from execution against the property of a foreign state does not prevent the arrest, detention or sale of the ship or cargo if at the time of the arrest or detention the ship or cargo was commercial property and, in the case of cargo being carried in a ship belonging to the same or some other foreign state, the ship was commercial property. For property to be commercial property, the foreign state must use it substantially for commercial purposes.

Readers may remember an earlier comment in [1984] 4 LMCLQ 557 dealing with contracts for the supply of services in Australia. The foreshadowed amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Commonwealth) have now been enacted, although not as envisaged in the earlier comment. It had been thought that the implied warranties imposed by statute, as to the rendering of all services with due care and skill, and so as to be reasonably fit for a known purpose (s. 74), would operate so as to neutralize exclusion clauses in, for example, consignment notes issued in the road transportation industry. However, the amendments enacted in May 1986 have not