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 High Court denied two defences to enforcement of an ICC award. It found, first, that the arbitral tribunal had been properly constituted. The ICC Court had not erred in appointing five arbitrators itself, rather than accepting the agreement in the arbitration clause that each of the four parties to the shareholders' agreement appoint an arbitrator, with the fifth to be selected by the four nominated arbitrators. The Court concluded that three of the parties to the agreement should be considered as one party, so that allowing the arbitration clause to be applied would be a violation of the French law principle of equality of parties (égalité) and the Dutco principle. The High Court also dismissed the argument that two arbitrators had violated their duty of disclosure.
Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court British Virgin Islands, High Court of Justice (Commercial Division), 13 August 2020, Claim No. BVIHC (COM) 2015/0117 Claim No. BVIHC (COM) 2019/006
(PT Ventures SGPS SA v. Vidatel Ltd)
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
British Virgin Islands 5. Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, High Court of Justice, British Virgin Islands Circuit, 6 February 2014
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
British Virgin Islands 4. Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, High Court of Justice, British Virgin Islands Circuit, 15 July 2013
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.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
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.
British Virgin Islands 3. Court of Appeal, Territory of the Virgin Islands, 20 September 2010
British Virgin Islands 2. Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, High Court of Justice, Commercial Division, 11 January 2010
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
British Virgin Islands 1. Court of Appeal, 18 June 2008
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
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.