- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- PAKISTAN 9
PAKISTAN 9
9. High Court, Lahore (Judicial Department), 28 April 2023, Civil Original Suit No. 80492 of 2017
(Tradhol International SA Sociedad Unipersonal v. Shakarganj Limited)
PAKISTAN 9
The High Court granted recognition and enforcement of a London award, holding that the evidence supported a finding that the parties had concluded a valid arbitration agreement through an exchange of emails. Further, the fact that the arbitral tribunal had not awaited the final determination of court proceedings pending in Pakistan in respect of the parties’ dispute was not a public policy defense within the narrow meaning of public policy in the context of international commercial arbitration.
The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
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 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 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.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
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.