An ICC arbitral tribunal seated in Switzerland had ordered Do Fluoride to pay damages for having impermissibly used Chenco’s proprietary technology (the designs for an aluminium fluoride production plant) to construct four further plants. Paragraphs 414 and 417 of the award ordered Do Fluoride, respectively, to pay contractual liquidated damages for each month that it continued to use the technology after the date of the award, with a backstop date of 31 August 2016, and interest thereon. A Commercial Court Judge granted ex parte permission to enforce the award. Do Fluoride opposed the ex parte order on several grounds, including that a factual inquiry was needed to ascertain whether Do Fluoride had continued to use the technology after the date of the award. Considering that he was not in a position to decide the factual question, another judge set aside the enforcement order, granted judgment to Chenco only in respect of the sums owed until the date of the award, and provided – with the parties’ agreement – that a further trial would be held to determine the extent of the sums, if any, owed for the period after 23 April 2013. The present decision was rendered in the further trial. The Court first held that, contrary to Do Fluoride’s opinion, the question of whether Do Fluoride was still using the technology fell within the scope of the Court’s recognition and enforcement jurisdiction. It noted that the factual enquiry before it arose out of an order made by the court following agreement by the parties, which order contained no qualification or reservations as to the court’s jurisdiction to determine the issue. On the facts on record, the Court then held that Do Fluoride had continued to use the technology, and therefore granted judgment to Chenco in the amounts owed for contractual liquidated damages.