---
title: "Draft or review a maritime arbitration clause for an Australian cargo dispute"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/maritime-shipping-and-transport/draft-or-review-a-maritime-arbitration-clause/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A37-T1-R12-CTH"
practice_area: "Maritime, Shipping & Transport"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Draft or review a maritime arbitration clause for an Australian cargo dispute

> Produce a first-draft London, Singapore or ACICA clause from the playbook, compare LMAA, SCMA and ACICA rules, and note New York Convention enforcement in Australia.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/maritime-shipping-and-transport/draft-or-review-a-maritime-arbitration-clause/commonwealth  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Maritime, Shipping & Transport](https://ailawframework.com/practice/maritime-shipping-and-transport.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Produce a first-draft London, Singapore or ACICA clause from the playbook, compare LMAA, SCMA and ACICA rules, and note New York Convention enforcement in Australia. |
| What the lawyer must review | Apply Carmichael Rail [2024] HCA 4 to any London clause challenged under COGSA Art III r 8 Check whether the cargo interest can show the clause lessens liability; if not, it survives Check the operative document and any incorporation from the charterparty Check the contested reach of COGSA s 11 Consider ACICA or MLAANZ arbitration |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [Draft or review a maritime arbitration clause](https://ailawframework.com/practice/maritime-shipping-and-transport/draft-or-review-a-maritime-arbitration-clause.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and summarising source material. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
2. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
3. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
4. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
5. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*