The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
The parties concluded an agreement providing that any difference or dispute concerning its scope, meaning, construction or effect was to be referred to arbitration in accordance with, and subject to, the provisions of the English Arbitration Act, 1950. Further, the agreement was to be interpreted in accordance with the Law of England. When British Airways terminated the agreement, Bangladesh Air Service gave formal notice of arbitration. After British Airways did not agree to Bangladesh Air Services' proposal in appointing an arbitrator, Bangladesh Air Services applied to a Bangladeshi court to appoint an arbitrator. British Airways objected that the court did not have jurisdiction since the arbitration was subject to the English Arbitration Act, 1950 and the agreement was subject to English law. The court held that its jurisdiction was not ousted and appointed an arbitrator. The High Court Division reversed this finding on revision, holding that the courts of Bangladesh had no jurisdiction. By the present decision, the Appellate Division, upheld the decision of the High Court Division, finding the parties could validly opt for arbitration under the English Arbitration Act 1950 and that in doing so, they had ousted the jurisdiction of the Bangladesh Court. The Appellate Division also pointed out that although Bangladesh had acceded to the New York Convention, it had not passed implementing legislation. Thus, the Convention could not be relied upon to enforce a foreign award in Bangladesh.
Appellate Division, 8 May 1997
(Bangladesh Air Service (Pvt) Ltd. v. British Airways PLC)
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
The court discusses the relationship between the New York Convention, the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923, and the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927.