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.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 10 January 2023, Case No. 21-1196 and No. 21-1324
(Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B. de C.V. et al.)
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.
A Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia granted an appeal from its own first instance decision, rendered by a Judge, and denied enforcement of a Qatari award, finding that the arbitral tribunal had not been constituted in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
Federal Court of Australia, 25 June 2021
(Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd v. Energy City Qatar Holding Company)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
The Federal Court denied enforcement of a CIETAC award, rendered in a dispute under a shareholders agreement, in respect of the second respondent, finding that she had not been properly informed of the arbitration, and that the lack of a proper notice (Sect. 8(5)(c) of the 1974 International Arbitration Act (IAA) and Art. V(1)(b) of the 1958 New York Convention) constituted a breach of natural justice, so that enforcement would constitute a violation of public policy (Sect. 8(7)(b) of the IAA and Art. V(2)(b) of the Convention). The Court granted enforcement against the other respondents. (1) The Court observed preliminarily that: (i) there was a strong presumption of regularity in respect of awards and the means by which they were arrived at; (ii) the evidentiary standard of proof to establish grounds for refusal under the IAA was the balance of probabilities and specifically, in respect of proper notice, the party had to have been given a reasonable opportunity to present its case; (iii) proper notice had to be determined under Australian law, but it was important that any approach to determine what was proper notice under Sect. 8(5)(c) was consistent with the approaches of other jurisdictions that enacted domestic law to implement the New York Convention; (iv) a finding of violation of public policy as a ground for refusal under Sect. 8(7)(b) of the IAA was a matter of Australian public policy and Australian principles of natural justice; and (v) the Federal Court was not bound by the findings of the arbitral tribunal. (2) On the facts of the case, the Court held that the second respondent had not been given notice of the arbitration at the (email) addresses provided for in the shareholders agreement; the notice had been sent instead to an address that was not the contractually agreed address for her, but rather the address given for her husband, the first respondent, in a different agreement to which she was not a party. The Court also found that the second respondent could not be deemed to have had actual knowledge of the arbitration through her husband, both because the Court found that he had not been her agent, and because the second respondent had had very limited involvement in her husband’s business. Notice had also not been in accordance with the alternatives given in the CIETAC rules. (3) Failure to give proper notice breached the rules of natural justice and enforcement of the award would constitute a violation of public policy. (4) Under the circumstances, the Court held that it ought not to exercise its residual discretion in favor of enforcement even in the absence of proper notice, because proper notice was a fundamental requirement to the integrity of the arbitration.
Federal Court of Australia, 11 May 2021, File No. VID 637 of 2020
(Beijing Jishi Venture Capital Fund (Limited Partnership) v. James Z Liu et al.)
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of what is the proper method for enforcing foreign arbitral awards which have been certified by a competent court in the seat of the arbitration, i.e., whether by seeking recognition and enforcement of the award or by seeking recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment certifying the award. It clarified that the proper process is provided under section 29a of the Israeli Arbitration Law, 5728-1968 and in the New York Convention; it is only in rare and exceptional cases that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award may be pursued by seeking enforcement of the foreign judgment certifying it, through the procedure set out in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, 5718-1958.
The Supreme Court also explained the phrase “becomes binding” in Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention means that it is no longer possible to file an appeal from the award in the arbitration proceeding, as distinct from an appeal before a court. The Court further confirmed that (i) once the arbitral award is set aside at the seat of the arbitration, it should not be recognized and enforced under the New York Convention, except in exceptional cases (for example, the decision to set it aside was made by a judicial forum that is not autonomous and independent); and (ii) certification of the arbitral award in the seat of the arbitration does not automatically lead to recognition and enforcement by virtue of the New York Convention. However, rejection of claims pertaining to the validity of the arbitral award in a motion to certify or set it aside could give rise to cause of action estoppel that bars identical claims from being raised in the opposition to enforcement and certification of the arbitral award in Israel.
Supreme Court of Israel, 21 April 2021
(Luminati Networks Ltd. V. B.I. Science Ltd.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
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.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the conditions under which an award that has merged into a court judgment in the country of origin can still be enforced as an award under the Convention, and whether a decision granting recognition under the Convention can be enforced as a foreign court judgment in a third country.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses issues relating to the more-favorable right provision in general, including who may invoke it, and when.
On 23 November 2020, the Queen’s Division Bench rendered its decision in PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine affirming that the failure to raise a jurisdictional objection during the course of the arbitration operates as a waiver to object to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction on that point during enforcement proceedings. The Court upheld the ex parte order for enforcement of the arbitral award, rejecting Ukraine's application under Section 103(2)(d) of the English Arbitration Act ("the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decision on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration"), which mirrors Art. V(1)(c) of the New York Convention. The Court accepted Ukraine's argument that PAO Tatneft's investment was illegal on the basis that the underlying share purchases by Seagroup and Amruz, made through the payment of promissory notes, were contrary to Ukranian legislation. The Court, however, rejected Ukraine's application to refuse enforcement of the award as it had failed to raise this particular illegality objection when challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction in the arbitration. Referring to the treatises of Van den Berg and Born, the Court held that the failure to raise a plea as to jurisdiction operates as a waiver of the point that was not raised. Further referring to the ICCA's Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention – A Handbook for Judges, the Court emphasized that the objection to jurisdiction must be by specific submissions and not through a general challenge.
The Court affirmed that the discretion vested in it under Section 103(2) of the English Arbitration Act, to enforce an award notwithstanding the presence of any of the circumstances set forth under that provision, must be applied in a way that gives effect to the principles behind the New York Convention.
High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 23 November 2020
(PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine)
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
A Judge of the Federal Court granted the application to enforce a Qatari award. Energy City, which had commenced the arbitration, had sought the appointment of the three-member arbitral tribunal by a Qatari court rather than following the procedure set out in the arbitration clause in the parties' contract. Hub Street had not participated in the arbitration. The Judge held on the facts of the case that Hub Street, contrary to its argument, had been given proper notice of the arbitration, as it had been aware of the application to the Qatari court for the appointment of the tribunal. The Judge also rejected Hub Street's claim that the appointment of the arbitrators and the constitution of the arbitral tribunal had not been in accordance with the agreement of the parties, finding that, since the contract was governed by Qatari law and the arbitration clause called for arbitration "in accordance with the rules of arbitration in Qatar", Energy City had been entitled under Qatari law to request the appointment of the arbitrators from a Qatari court. Hub Street's further objection that the language of the arbitration had not been in accordance with the agreement of the parties also failed, as the Judge found that even though Arabic had been used in the arbitral proceedings and for the drafting of the award, rather than English as required under the parties’ contract, other factual elements, such as the fact that the notices of the arbitration had been in English, led to conclude that there had been no prejudice to Hub Street.
Federal Court of Australia, 5 August 2020, File No. NSD 94 of 20
(Energy City Qatar Holding Company v. Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2)
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed the recognition and enforcement of three partial final and one final LCIA award rendered in England. The Court noted that the role of the enforcement court under the 1958 New York Convention and the Indian Act was very limited: no review of the merits of the award was possible, and the court could only ascertain whether any of the limited grounds that could be raised by the defendant existed, or whether enforcement would violate the public policy of India – to be construed narrowly to mean a violation of a fundamental policy of Indian law, justice, or morality. Further, the Court retained the residual discretion to grant enforcement even if a refusal ground existed, but only where such ground affected solely party interests. In the present case, the alleged violations of due process did not justify a refusal, in light of the narrow reading to be given to the expression "otherwise unable to present his case" in Sect. 48(1)(b) of the Indian Arbitration Act, which mirrored Art. V(1)(b) of the Convention. The Supreme Court affirmed the recognition and enforcement of three partial final and one final LCIA award rendered in England. The Court noted that the role of the enforcement court under the 1958 New York Convention and the Indian Act was very limited: no review of the merits of the award was possible, and the court could only ascertain whether any of the limited grounds that could be raised by the defendant existed, or whether enforcement would violate the public policy of India – to be construed narrowly to mean a violation of a fundamental policy of Indian law, justice, or morality. Further, the Court retained the residual discretion to grant enforcement even if a refusal ground existed, but only where such ground affected solely party interests. In the present case, the alleged violations of due process did not justify a refusal, in light of the narrow reading to be given to the expression "otherwise unable to present his case" in Sect. 48(1)(b) of the Indian Arbitration Act, which mirrored Art. V(1)(b) of the Convention.
Supreme Court of India, 13 February 2020
(Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi srl et al.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
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.
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.
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 consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
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.
US No. 996. Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited (Nigeria) et al. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Nigeria), United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 14-cv-8445 (WHP), 4 September 2019
United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, 4 September 2019
Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National
Petroleum Corporation
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
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.
Netherlands 62. Not indicated v. OJSC Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat, Hoge Raad, Case No. 16/05686, 24 November 2017
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
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.
US 919. Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 20 July 2017
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.
US 917. Getma International v. Republic of Guinea, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 7 July 2017
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.
Colombia No. 12. Tampico Beverages, Inc. v. Productos Naturales de la Sabana S.A. (Alquería), Corte Suprema de Justicia, Civil Cassation Chamber, SC9909-2017, 12 July 2017
Corte Suprema de Justicia, Civil Cassation Chamber,
12 July 2017
Tampico Beverages, Inc. v. Productos Naturales de la Sabana S.A. (Alquería)
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirements of the translation (translation by sworn translator, translation of entire award etc.) and whether a translation is necessary.
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.
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.
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 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 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 consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
India 54. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v. Unitech Limited, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, 11 April 2017
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
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.
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.
UK 105. Sinocore International Co Ltd v. RBRG Trading (UK) Ltd, Hight Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, 17 February 2017
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
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.
Hong Kong 30. Astro v. Lippo, Court of Appeal, 5 December 2016
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Hong Kong 29. Dana Shipping and Trading SA v. Sino Channel Asia Ltd, High Court of Hong Kong, Court of First Instance, Case No. 47 of 2015 and No. 1676 of 2016, 28 July 2016
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.
Hong Kong 28. L v. B, High Court of the Hong Kong SAR, Court of First Instance, Construction and Arbitration Proceedings, 5 May 2016
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
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.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 880. Getma International v. The Republic of Guinea, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 9 June 2016
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.
Australia 47. Joseph Isaac Gutnick et al. v. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited et al., Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal, 9 February 2016
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 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.
Australia 46. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited et al. v. Joseph Isaac Gutnick et al., Supreme Court of Victoria, Commercial Court, Case No. CI 2015 05409, 21 December 2015 and 22 December 2015
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.
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 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.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
Italy No. 195, Corpoaseo Total s.a.e.s.p. v. AMA - Azienda Municipalizzata Ambiente s.p.a., Corte di Cassazione, No. 17712, 7 September 2015
Corte di Cassazione, First Civil Chamber,
7 September 2015, no. 17712
Corpoaseo Total s.a.e.s.p. v. AMA – Azienda Municipalizzata
Ambiente s.p.a.
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.
UK 100. High Court of Justice, Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 1 July 2015
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
UK 101. Malicorp Limited v. Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt et al., High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), 19 February 2015
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.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
Canada 34. Depo Traffic Facilities (Kunshan) Co. v. Vikeda International Logistics and Automotive Supply Ltd., Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Case No. CV-13-483322, 18 February 2015
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
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.
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.
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.
Hong Kong 26. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 17 February 2015
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.
US 809. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 6 February 2014
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 793. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 27 August 2013
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.
Belize 2. Supreme Court of Belize, 8 August 2012, and Caribbean Court of Justice, 26 July 2013
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
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 conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
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 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.
India 47. High Court of Calcutta, 20 March 2012
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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.
UK 93. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 27 July 2011
UK 93. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 27 July 2011
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
UK 92. Supreme Court, 3 November 2010
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
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.
British Virgin Islands 3. Court of Appeal, Territory of the Virgin Islands, 20 September 2010