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 Supreme Court, hearing an appeal against a lower court's decision to enforce an LCIA award, regretted that in a commercially fast paced world, Pakistan had signed the UNCITRAL Model Law but had not yet incorporated its provisions into its domestic law. On the merits of the application, the Court agreed with the finding that the arbitration clause in a contract between the parties was applicable to disputes arising under another contract between them, because the two contracts were connected and interdependent, and that the arbitral tribunal had been empowered to decide on its own jurisdiction under the principle of competence-competence. The Supreme Court dismissed the contention that enforcement would violate public policy because the award amounted to unjust enrichment, holding that the opposing party failed to make out its claim. The Court stressed in this respect that the public policy exception in Art. V(2)(b) of the New York Convention acted as a safeguard of fundamental notions of morality and justice, and was never meant to be given a wide scope of application or become a back door to review the merits of a foreign arbitral award or to create grounds which were not available under Art. V of the Convention.
Supreme Court of Pakistan, 17 August 2021, Civil Appeal No.1547 of 2019
(Orient Power Company (Private) Limited v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited)
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Pakistan 5. High Court of Sindh, Karachi, 23 December 2013
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Pakistan 4. High Court of Sindh, Karachi, 19 November 2013
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Pakistan 3. High Court of Sindh, Karachi, 14 May 2013
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Pakistan 2. High Court, Karachi, 7 March 2006
The court discusses what more recent means of communication are also covered by the “exchange of letters or telegrams” alternative: telefax, email, e-commerce, etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Pakistan 1. High Court, Karachi, 14 February 2006
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses how to determine that there is a dispute as a condition for referral to arbitration.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.