Court Decisions

The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are in most cases published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976). 

Search options:

Court Decisions Search Engine

The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention.

  1. Most decisions are reported in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, published by ICCA since 1976, and are numbered as in the Yearbook (e.g., US no. 954).

  2. Other decisions are indicated by country, date, and a short name (e.g., UK 18 June 2020 Alexander Brothers).

Court decisions can be searched by country and by topic.

Court Decisions

Search Court Decisions

  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 2024-1

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 24 August 2023, Construction and Arbitration Proceedings No 111 of 2022

    (Song Lihua v Lee Chee Hon (former name: Que Wenbin))

    509

    Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.

    "Proper notice"
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    523

    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.

    Irregularities in the arbitral procedure (see also Art. V(1)(b))
    HONG KONG 12 June 2023 Sky Power

    The Court examined whether there had been an unacceptable delay on the part of the respondent in filing its application to set aside the order enforcing an LCIA award. The Court explained that the merits of the set-aside application were one of the factors to be considered when deciding whether an extension of time should be granted. In the present case, the only ground invoked by the respondent was that the arbitration hearing had been virtual, which was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties and had resulted in the respondent being unable to present its case adequately. The Court found that there was no merit in the set-aside application, and denied the request to file it out of time.

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 12 June 2023, NO 113 of 2022

    (Sky Power Construction Engineering Limited v. Iraero Airlines JSC)

     

    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 40

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, Construction and Arbitration Proceedings, 17 October 2022, Action No. HCCT 14/2022

    (A1 et al. v. W1 et al.)

    107

    The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.

    Second reservation ("commercial reservation") (paragraph 3)
    HONG KONG 39

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of Appeal, 7 June 2022, Civil Appeal No. 387/2021

    (C v. D)

    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 38

    The High Court set aside an enforcement order for a Mainland award, made under the auspices of the Zhanjiang Arbitration Commission, on the basis that the underlying contract was a sham, the arbitration agreement was not valid, and thus it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the award.

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 29 December 2021
    (Guangdong Shunde Zhanwei Trading Co., Ltd. v Sun Fung Timber Company Limited)

    505 Incapacity of party
    507

    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.

    Miscellaneous cases regarding the arbitration agreement
    509

    Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.

    "Proper notice"
    524

    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.

    Other cases
    HONG KONG 36 B

    This decision confirms the earlier finding of in HONG KONG 36 A, in which the High Court had refused to enforce an arbitral award rendered in Taiwan, setting aside the enforcement order initially granted, on the grounds that the award dealt with matters not falling within the terms of the arbitration clause, and that the defendant had been unable to present its case in the arbitration, because it had not been given the reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions on the effects of the violation of certain provisions of Taiwanese law. 

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 19 January 2021

    (X v. Y)

    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 36 A

    The Court refused to enforce an arbitral award rendered in Taiwan, setting aside the enforcement order initially granted, on the grounds that the award dealt with matters not falling within the terms of the arbitration clause, and that the defendant had been unable to present its case in the arbitration, because it had not been given the reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions on the effects of the violation of certain provisions of Taiwanese law. See also HONG KONG 36 B, in which the Court confirmed its earlier finding. 

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 5 November 2020 

    (X v. Y)

    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 35

    The Court dismissed the defendant’s arguments against enforcement of a SIAC award. It found that since the defendant himself had threatened to invoke the arbitration clause, and had never challenged the authenticity of the main contract, he could not allege that the contract was forged and that as a consequence the arbitration agreement was null and void. Also, the tribunal had not exceeded its authority, as the  present plaintiff had replaced the original signatory by a deed of novation, and the record showed that the defendant had been given proper notice of the arbitration, and had received the arbitration documents.

     High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 25 June 2019, HCCT 4/2019

    (OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd v. David Lin Kao Kun)

    507

    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.

    Miscellaneous cases regarding the arbitration agreement
    509

    Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.

    "Proper notice"
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 2019-1

    Hong Kong No. 2019-1. U v. S, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, Construction and Arbitration Proceedings, No 1 of 2018, 6 September 2018

    601

    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.

    Adjournment of decision on enforcement
    HONG KONG 34

    Hong Kong 34. U v. S, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, Construction and Arbitration Proceedings, No 1 of 2018, 6 September 2018

    601

    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.

    Adjournment of decision on enforcement
    HONG KONG 32 B

    See also Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 11 April 2018 (PT Ayunda Prima Mitra et al. v. Astro Nusantara International B.V. et al.) HONG KONG 32 A

    Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 18 July 2018

    (PT Ayunda Prima Mitra et al. v. Astro Nusantara International B.V. et al.)

    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    HONG KONG 33

    Hong Kong 33. Paloma Company Limited v. Capxon Electronic Industrial Company Limited, Court of First Instance, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, HCCT 53/2017, 25 May 2018

    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    524

    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.

    Other cases
    HONG KONG 32 A

    See also Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 18 July 2018 (PT Ayunda Prima Mitra et al. v. Astro Nusantara International B.V. et al.) HONG KONG 32 B

    Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 11 April 2018 

    (PT Ayunda Prima Mitra et al. v. Astro Nusantara International B.V. et al.)

    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 31

    Hong Kong 31. Astro Nusantara International B.V. v. PT Ayunda Prima Mitra et al., Court of Appeal, 29 March 2017

    403

    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.

    Original or copy arbitration agreement
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 30

    Hong Kong 30. Astro v. Lippo, Court of Appeal, 5 December 2016

    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    303

    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.

    Estoppel/waiver
    403

    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.

    Original or copy arbitration agreement
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    500A Residual power to enforce notwithstanding existence of ground for refusal
    HONG KONG 29

    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

    500A Residual power to enforce notwithstanding existence of ground for refusal
    516

    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.

    "Set aside"
    HONG KONG 28

    Hong Kong 28. L v. B, High Court of the Hong Kong SAR, Court of First Instance, Construction and Arbitration Proceedings, 5 May 2016

    303

    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.

    Estoppel/waiver
    500A Residual power to enforce notwithstanding existence of ground for refusal
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    508 Ground b: Violation of due process in general
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    601

    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.

    Adjournment of decision on enforcement
    HONG KONG 27

    Hong Kong 27. T v. C, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 14 March 2016

    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    524

    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.

    Other cases
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 26

    Hong Kong 26. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 17 February 2015

    500A Residual power to enforce notwithstanding existence of ground for refusal
    507

    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.

    Miscellaneous cases regarding the arbitration agreement
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 25 C

    See also Court of Appeal, Hong Kong SAR, 13 June 2011 (Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Company Limited v. PetroChina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited) HONG KONG 25 A

    and

    Court of Appeal, Hong Kong SAR, 25 July 2011 (Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Company Limited v. PetroChina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited) HONG KONG 25 B

    Court of Appeal, Hong Kong SAR, 11 August 2011

    (Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Company Limited v. PetroChina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited)

    110

    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.

    Arbitral award: types
    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    523

    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.

    Irregularities in the arbitral procedure (see also Art. V(1)(b))
    HONG KONG 25 B

    See also Court of Appeal, Hong Kong SAR, 13 June 2011 (Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Company Limited v. PetroChina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited) HONG KONG 25 A

    and

    Court of Appeal, Hong Kong SAR, 11 August 2011 (Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Company Limited v. PetroChina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited) HOBG KONG 25 C

    Court of Appeal, Hong Kong SAR, 25 July 2011

     (Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Company Limited v. PetroChina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited)

    110

    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.

    Arbitral award: types
    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    523

    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.

    Irregularities in the arbitral procedure (see also Art. V(1)(b))
    HONG KONG 25 A

    See also Court of Appeal, Hong Kong SAR, 25 July 2011 (Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Company Limited v. PetroChina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited) HONG KONG 25 B

    and

    Court of Appeal, Hong Kong SAR, 11 August 2011 (Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Company Limited v. PetroChina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited) HONG KONG 25 C

    Court of Appeal, Hong Kong SAR, 13 June 2011

    (Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Company Limited v. PetroChina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited)

    110

    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.

    Arbitral award: types
    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    523

    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.

    Irregularities in the arbitral procedure (see also Art. V(1)(b))
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 24 B

    See also Court of Appeal, 10 February 2010 (FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, et al.) HONG KONG 24 A

    Court of Appeal, 5 May 2010

    (FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, et al.)

    105

    The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).

    "Persons, whether physical or legal" (paragraph 1) (including sovereign immunity)
    HONG KONG 24 A

    See also Court of Appeal, 5 May 2010 (FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, et al.) HONG KONG 24 B

     

    Court of Appeal, 10 February 2010

    (FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, et al.)

    105

    The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).

    "Persons, whether physical or legal" (paragraph 1) (including sovereign immunity)
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 21 B

    See also Court of First Instance, 24 June 2008 (Applicant [Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Ltd] v. Eton Properties Limited, et al.) HONG KONG 21 A

    Court of Appeal, 22 May 2009

    (Applicant [Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Ltd] v. Eton Properties Limited, et al.)

    110

    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.

    Arbitral award: types
    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    519

    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.

    Ground a: Arbitrability
    524

    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.

    Other cases
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 23

    Hong Kong 23. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 12 December 2008

    105

    The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).

    "Persons, whether physical or legal" (paragraph 1) (including sovereign immunity)
    HONG KONG 22

    Hong Kong 22. Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 5 December 2008

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    501

    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.

    Grounds are exhaustive
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    513 Ground d: Irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure
    524

    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.

    Other cases
    HONG KONG 21 A

    See also Court of Appeal, 22 May 2009 (Applicant [Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Ltd] v. Eton Properties Limited, et al.) HONG KONG 21 B

    Court of First Instance, 24 June 2008 

    (Applicant [Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Ltd] v. Eton Properties Limited, et al.)

    110

    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.

    Arbitral award: types
    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    519

    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.

    Ground a: Arbitrability
    524

    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.

    Other cases
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 20

    Hong Kong 20. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of Appeal, 9 October 2007 and 16 June 2008

    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    524

    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.

    Other cases
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 17 B

    See also High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 20 December 2002 (Karaha Bodas Co. LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara – Pertamina) HONG KONG 17 A

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 27 March 2003

    (Karaha Bodas Co. LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara – Pertamina)

    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
    513 Ground d: Irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure
    516

    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.

    "Set aside"
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    524

    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.

    Other cases
    601

    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.

    Adjournment of decision on enforcement
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 17 A

    See also Hiigh Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 27 March 2003 (Karaha Bodas Co. LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara – Pertamina) HONG KONG 17 B

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 20 December 2002

    (Karaha Bodas Co. LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara – Pertamina)

    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
    513 Ground d: Irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure
    516

    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.

    "Set aside"
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    524

    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.

    Other cases
    601

    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.

    Adjournment of decision on enforcement
    HONG KONG 19

    Hong Kong 19. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 6 March 2002

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    104

    The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards. 

    Convention's applicability in other cases
    505 Incapacity of party
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    524

    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.

    Other cases
    704(B) Bilateral Treaties
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 18

    Hong Kong 18. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 20 December 2001

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    503

    The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.

    Burden of proof on respondent
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    601

    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.

    Adjournment of decision on enforcement
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 16

    Hong Kong 16. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 8 April 2000

    405

    The court discusses issues relating to the moment when the documents that are required for seeking recognition and enforcement must be supplied, and whether any defect can be cured later in the enforcement proceeding.

    "At the time of application"
    524

    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.

    Other cases
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 15

    Hong Kong 15. Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 9 February 1999

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    104

    The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards. 

    Convention's applicability in other cases
    303

    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.

    Estoppel/waiver
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    508 Ground b: Violation of due process in general
    516

    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.

    "Set aside"
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    521

    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.

    Lack of impartiality of arbitrator
    524

    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.

    Other cases
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 14

    Hong Kong 14. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 30 November 1998

    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    HONG KONG 13

    Hong Kong 13. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 19 January 1998

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    HONG KONG 12

    Hong Kong 12. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of Appeal, 16 January 1998

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    102

    The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).

    Arbitral award not considered as domestic (paragraph 1)
    303

    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.

    Estoppel/waiver
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    516

    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.

    "Set aside"
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 11

    Hong Kong 11. Hong Kong Court of Appeal, 22 May 1997

    521

    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.

    Lack of impartiality of arbitrator
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 10

    Hong Kong 10. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 6 April 1995

    203-204 Formal validity, uniform law and municipal law
    206

    The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.

    Exchange of letters or telegrams
    303

    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.

    Estoppel/waiver
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 9

    Hong Kong 9. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 16 December 1994

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    HONG KONG 8

    Hong Kong 8. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 13 July 1994

    301

    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.

    Procedure for enforcement in general
    303

    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.

    Estoppel/waiver
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    501

    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.

    Grounds are exhaustive
    503

    The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.

    Burden of proof on respondent
    513 Ground d: Irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 6

    Hong Kong 6. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 15 January 1993

    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    516

    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.

    "Set aside"
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    HONG KONG 7

    Hong Kong 7. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 5 January 1993

    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    503

    The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.

    Burden of proof on respondent
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    524

    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.

    Other cases
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 5

    Hong Kong 5. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 12 August 1992

    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
    524

    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.

    Other cases
    HONG KONG 4

    Hong Kong 4. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 2 June 1992

    106

    The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).

    Problems concerning the identity of a party
    307

    The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.

    Interest on award
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    524

    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.

    Other cases
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 3

    Hong Kong 3. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 23 August 1991

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    206

    The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.

    Exchange of letters or telegrams
    404

    The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.

    Authentication and certification
    405

    The court discusses issues relating to the moment when the documents that are required for seeking recognition and enforcement must be supplied, and whether any defect can be cured later in the enforcement proceeding.

    "At the time of application"
    509

    Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.

    "Proper notice"
    HONG KONG 2

    Hong Kong 2. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 2 March 1991

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    104

    The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards. 

    Convention's applicability in other cases
    303

    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.

    Estoppel/waiver
    502

    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.

    No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    513 Ground d: Irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure
    516

    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.

    "Set aside"
    601

    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.

    Adjournment of decision on enforcement
    HONG KONG 1 B

    See also High Court, 28 November 1990 (Tiong Huat Rubber Factory (SDN) BHD v. Wah-Chang International Company Limited and Wah-Chang International Corporation Limited) HONG KONG 1 A

    Court of Appeal, 18 January 1991 (Tiong Huat Rubber Factory (SDN) BHD v. Wah-Chang International Company Limited and Wah-Chang International Corporation Limited)

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
  • Excerpt Topics
    HONG KONG 1 A

    See also Court of Appeal, 18 January 1991 (Tiong Huat Rubber Factory (SDN) BHD v. Wah-Chang International Company Limited and Wah-Chang International Corporation Limited) HONG KONG 1 B

    High Court, 28 November 1990 

    (Tiong Huat Rubber Factory (SDN) BHD v. Wah-Chang International Company Limited and Wah-Chang International Corporation Limited)

    101

    The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

    Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority