Generic terms
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Guide
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Greece / 30 April 2009 / Greece, Areios Pagos (Supreme Court) / ΜΕΝΤΙΚΕΡ Μονοπρόσωπη Εταιρία Περιορισμένης Ευθύνης και Εμπορία Ιατρικών Μηχανημάτων v. Philips AG / 11/2009
Country Greece Court Greece, Areios Pagos (Supreme Court) Date 30 April 2009 Parties ΜΕΝΤΙΚΕΡ Μονοπρόσωπη Εταιρία Περιορισμένης Ευθύνης και Εμπορία Ιατρικών Μηχανημάτων v. Philips AG Case number 11/2009 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) Source http://www.areiospagos.gr (website of the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) see also : Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5988&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Provincial Court of Burgos) Date 27 April 2009 Parties Abonos y Cereales S.L. v. Granit Negoce S.A. Case number AAP BU 21/2009 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4012&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 10 November 2008 Parties Belaja Rus v. Westintorg Corp. Case number 3K-3-562/2008 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Summary Belaja Rus (“Belaja”) entered into an agreement with Westintorg Corp (“Westintorg”), which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and Belaja obtained a favorable arbitral award, which it sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). Westintorg challenged the recognition and enforcement of the award on the basis of Article V(2)(b) NYC, arguing that the award violated Lithuanian public policy as the tribunal had awarded punitive damages to Belaja. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas found in favor of the Belaja and Westintorg appealed. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) granted enforcement only to part of the award, applying Article V(2)(b) NYC. After noting that an unreasonable and disproportionately high interest rate in the award could amount to a violation of Lithuanian public policy, it held that, in the present case, the final amount of interest was disproportionate and therefore against Lithuanian public policy. see also : Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1444&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 21 October 2008 Parties Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v. IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd Case number A3/2008/1037.PTA+(A) Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source [2008] EWCA Civ 1157 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary IPCO contracted with the State oil company of Nigeria ("NNPC") to construct a petroleum export terminal. The contract provided for arbitration in Nigeria under Nigerian law. A dispute arose and was referred to arbitration. The tribunal made an award in IPCO's favour. NNPC applied to a Nigerian court to have the award set aside. Meanwhile, IPCO sought enforcement of the award in the United Kingdom. The High Court permitted partial enforcement of the award. Both parties cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's judgment, finding that partial enforcement was permitted under both the Act and the NYC. It emphasised, however, that the section to be enforced should be ascertainable from the face of the award and the judgment should be capable of being granted in the same terms as the award. affirms : see also : Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=408&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 20 October 2008 Parties AB „Svenska Petroleum Exploration“, AB “Geonafta” v. Government of the Republic of Lithuania. Case number 3K-3-510/2008 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Summary AB „Svenska Petroleum Exploration“ (“Svenska”), AB “Geonafta” (“Geonafta”) entered into an agreement with the Republic of Lithuania (“Republic of Lithuania”), which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and an award was rendered in favor of Svenska and Geonafta, against the Republic of Lithuania, which Svenska and Geonafta sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). The Republic of Lithuania objected to the enforcement on the grounds of Articles V(1)(c) and V(2)(b) NYC, while at the same time challenging the validity of the contract (including the arbitration clause contained therein) in separate proceedings before the Kretinga district court. In the enforcement proceeding, the Republic of Lithuania argued that the contract breached Lithuanian public policy and that the proceedings for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award should be suspended pending the proceedings before the Kretinga district court. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas suspended the enforcement proceeding, and Svenska and Geonafta appealed to the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania). The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas upheld the decision of the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas, suspending the enforcement proceeding pending the proceeding before the Kretinga district court, which, it noted, would have a judicial and evidential impact on the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. Referring to Articles V(1)(c) and V(2)(b) NYC, the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas held that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the award without deciding whether the Republic of Lithuania could commit to arbitration. It therefore decided to await the decision of the Kretinga district court on the matter. Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1446&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Date 02 July 2008 Parties Bad Ass Coffee Company of Hawaii Inc. v. Bad Ass Enterprises Inc., Attitude Coffee Corporation and Ron Plucer Case number 0501 12165 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source 2008 ABQB 404 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary Bad Ass Coffee Company of Hawaii Inc. ("BAH") and Bad Ass Enterprises Inc. ("Enterprises") concluded several agreements under a franchise arrangement, through which Enterprises became developers of franchise operations and distributors of Bad Ass brand coffee products in Alberta. A director of Enterprises signed personal guarantees for payment under these agreements. However, these guarantees were not notarized, in violation of the Guarantees Acknowledgment Act of Alberta ("GAA"). A dispute arose out of three agreements, each of which contained clauses providing for arbitration in Utah. BAH filed a request for arbitration, but Enterprises objected to the proceedings. BAH filed a petition with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for an order compelling arbitration of the dispute. The Court ordered that the arbitration should proceed. After participating in the pre-hearing conference, Enterprises sought to withdraw from the proceedings as it objected to the jurisdiction of the tribunal and declared that they would not participate in the arbitration hearing. The sole arbitrator then decided the case in favor of BAH. After BAH obtained confirmation of the award through a judgment by the Utah District Court, it successfully applied for enforcement of this judgment in Alberta. Enterprises appealed against this judgment, arguing that (i) the enforcement of the award would violate public policy in Alberta because the guarantees were void under the GAA, and (ii) enforcement should be denied pursuant to Article V(1)(c) because the award exceeded the scope of submission to arbitration by addressing various fees charged by the franchisor that the parties' agreement specifically excluded from arbitration. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal. According to the Court, the purpose of the GAA is to protect unsophisticated borrowers from unexpected debts. While it considered that this purpose is "a fundamental value" of Alberta, it should be applied against the background of the concrete facts of each case. The director of Enterprises was a businessman who was very familiar with financial instruments and knew what obligation he was undertaking, and therefore the breach of the GAA would not support a public policy defense. The Court considered that this conclusion would also be reached by applying Article V(2)(b) NYC. The Court rejected Enterprises' defense to enforcement based on Article V(1)(c), noting that the dispute involved the complete breakdown of the parties' business relationships, and not specific fees, and therefore the arbitrators had not exceeded their jurisdiction. affirms : see also : Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=802&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Hong Kong Court Hong Kong, Court of First Instance, In the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Date 24 June 2008 Parties 厦門新景地集團有限公司 v. Eton Properties Limited (裕景興業有限公司) and Eton Properties (Holdings) Limited (裕景興業(集團)有限公司) Case number HCCT 54/2007 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) Source [2008] 4 HKLRD 972 | http://www.judiciary.gov.hk (website of the Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China)
Languages English Summary The plaintiff (“Applicant”, a company incorporated in China) and the first defendant (“Eton Properties”, a company incorporated in Hong Kong) entered into a contract whereby the Applicant had the contractual right to buy from Eton Properties the shares of a company which would own a plot of land, which company was a subsidiary of the second defendant (“Eton Holdings”, a company incorporated in Hong Kong), who owned the land at the time the contract was entered into. The contract provided for arbitration under the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”). A dispute arose, whereupon the Applicant initiated an arbitral proceeding in Beijing. The tribunal reached an award favourable to the Applicant, which ordered the specific performance of the agreement between the Applicant and the first defendant. As the arbitration proceeding was unfolding, and unbeknownst to the tribunal, the Eton group of companies proceeded to change its corporate structure with the effect that the shares held by Eton Properties were transferred to Eton Holdings. At the same time, also unbeknownst to the tribunal, Eton Holdings had developed and sold the entirety of the land which was previously held by Eton Properties. When the Applicant sought to enforce the award in Hong Kong the defendants argued for stay of enforcement on five grounds. Firstly, pursuant to Section 40E(3) of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance 2000 (Cap. 341) (the “Ordinance”) (mirroring Article V(2) NYC), the defendants argued that the enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of Hong Kong because the award was one of specific performance and hence the defendants would be ordered to perform the impossible. Secondly, the defendants contended that the award should not be enforced because the Applicant was not ready, willing or able to perform its obligations under the contract. Thirdly, the defendants contended that the Applicant had not made full and frank disclosure when applying for enforcement in the ex parte stage. Fourthly, pursuant to Section 40E(3) of the Ordinance (mirroring Article V(2) NYC), the defendants argued that this was a matter which was not “capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Hong Kong” because part of the award concerned land situated outside Hong Kong. Fifthly and finally, the defendants argued that the award should not be enforced because the Applicant had already applied for its enforcement in Mainland China. The Court of First Instance refused to grant a stay of enforcement, rejecting the defendants’ arguments and registering the award of the CIETAC tribunal a as a judgment. Reyes J found that the enforcement of an arbitral award should be “as mechanistic as possible”, precluding an examination of the merits. As a further preliminary matter, Reyes J decided that an award is capable of being enforced only in part. Turning to the particular arguments raised by the defendants, Reyes J held that it was possible for the defendants to perform the agreement. In the judge’s view “it [was] at last arguable” that the shares could eventually be transferred to the Applicant. Reyes J stressed that, in so holding, he did not intend to “go behind the award or second-guess what the tribunal [had] in mind”. The judge considered it important that the argument regarding the Eton group’s corporate restructuring had never been raised before the tribunal or the Beijing court. The judge held that the enforcing court could vary the order of the arbitral tribunal if that order was no longer capable of being performed although, in this case, the judge found it was capable of being performed. Reyes J rejected the remaining four arguments advanced by the defendants. affirmed by : Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=942&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeal of Lithuania) Date 14 April 2008 Parties SIA ,,Tered Rail & Logistics“ v. OOO ,,Trans Sibirskij Ekspress Servis“ Case number 2T-11/2008 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.apeliacinis.lt (website of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania)
Summary SIA ,,Tered Rail & Logistics“ (“Tered”) entered into a contract with OOO ,,Trans Sibirskij Ekspress Servis“ (“Trans”), which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and Tered initiated arbitration proceedings against Trans, obtaining a favorable award, which it sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (the Court of Appeals of Lithuania). Trans objected to the enforcement on the basis of Article V(2)(b) NYC, arguing that the arbitral award was contrary to Lithuanian public policy because the arbitral tribunal had awarded damages under a penalty provision in the contract for termination of the contract, which imposed a very high penalty, equivalent to one third of the total contract price. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas granted recognition and enforcement of the award, finding that the award did not violate Lithuanian public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC. It held that even though the amount of the penalty was high, the parties had consented to the provision, and that the amount was proportionate to the value of the agreement. Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1449&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 10 April 2008 Parties Société C22 v. Société John K. King & Sons Limited Frontier Agriculture Limited Case number 06/15636 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary In an award dated 12 June 2006 rendered in London, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of a UK company (King) against a French company (C22). In an order issued on 10 August 2006, the President of the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, the opposing party argued that the award was contrary to international public policy pursuant to Article 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article V(2)(b) NYC. In this respect, it claimed that the award was rendered in violation of the principle of impartiality and independence of arbitrators. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order. It noted that (i) pursuant to Article VII NYC, a party may not be deprived of its right to rely on an award in accordance with, and within the limits of, the laws of the place where enforcement is sought, and (ii) Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure is similar in substance to Article V NYC and leads to similar results with respect to the public policy exception. It ruled that C22, which participated in the arbitral proceedings leading to the award, without making any objection to the composition of the arbitral tribunal, was estopped from requesting that the Cour d'appel de Paris set aside the award on the basis of an irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal, which it had tacitly but necessarily consented to. see also : Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=183&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Date 24 October 2007 Parties Karaha Bodas Company, L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara and P.T. PLN (Persero) Case number 0203 03768 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source 2007 ABQB 616 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary Karaha Bodas Company, L.L.C. ("KBC") and Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara ("Pertamina"), the Indonesian state oil company, concluded an agreement that bestowed Pertamina with management obligations for a geothermal project in Indonesia and KBC the responsibility for financing the project and building, owning, and operating the generating facilities. The same day, an agreement for the sale of energy from this project was concluded between KBC, Pertamina and P.T. PLN (Persero) ("PLN"), a state-owned electric utility company. Both agreements provided for the application of Indonesian law, and dispute settlement by arbitration in Switzerland pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission for International Commercial Law (“UNCITRAL Rules”). Four years later, the project was indefinitely suspended by Presidential Decree. KBC initiated arbitration in Switzerland against Pertamina and PLN for the breach of both agreements. In a preliminary award the tribunal rejected motions by Pertamina and PLN to consolidate the claims. The tribunal eventually decided the dispute in favor of KBC. Pertamina’s application to have the award set aside in Switzerland was unsuccessful. Pertamina then successfully annulled the award before a first instance court in Indonesia, but that decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of Indonesia. KBC subsequently obtained enforcement of the award in several countries, including Hong Kong and the United States. KBC then obtained enforcement of the award before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. Pertamina appealed that decision, arguing that enforcement of the award should be denied because the award had been obtained by fraud, and its enforcement should therefore be denied pursuant to Article V(2)(b) NYC because it would be contrary to public policy. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench allowed the appeal to proceed on the merits. However, it rejected Pertamina's defense to enforcement based on Article V(2)(b) NYC, considering that "it is not up to the Alberta courts to retry the matter” or to second-guess the findings of an arbitral tribunal in the course of an application to register and enforce a foreign award. According to the Court, Article V NYC expresses the presumption of validity of a foreign award, and only when a party can establish one of the enumerated defenses to enforcement can a court refuse to enforce it. According to the Court, enforcement of the award would only violate the public policy of the domestic jurisdiction if the award was patently unreasonable, and this standard had not been met by the fraud allegations in the case at bar. affirms : see also :
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / a.Substantive public policy / §30
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / b. Procedural public policy / §35
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / b. Ex officio review, burden of proof and standard of proof / §58
- Canada / 20 February 2003 / Canada, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta / Karaha Bodas Company, L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara and P.T. PLN (Persero) / 0203 03768
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=801&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 23 October 2007 Parties K**** v. F**** AG Case number 3Ob141/07t Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages German Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3882&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Hong Kong Court Hong Kong, Court of Appeal, In the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Date 09 October 2007 Parties Karaha Bodas Company LLC v. Perushahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) Case number CACV 121/2003 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source [2007] 4 HKLRD 1002 | http://www.judiciary.gov.hk (website of the Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China)
Languages English Summary The plaintiff (“KBC”, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands and operating out of the US) entered into two contracts with the defendant (“Pertamina”, a company incorporated in Indonesia), both of which provided for arbitration in Geneva, Switzerland. Another Indonesian state-owned company was party to the second contract and both contracts were governed by Indonesian law. A dispute arose between KBC and Pertamina, which KBC referred to arbitration. KBC obtained an award in its favour, which it sought to enforce in Hong Kong. Pertamina opposed the award’s enforcement under several grounds in Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance 2000 (Cap. 341) (the “Ordinance”). Pertamina appealed, arguing (i) the arbitral tribunal’s refusal to grant it an adjournment and discovery rendered it unable to present its case, in violation of Section 44(2)(c) of Hong Kong's Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 341 (which directly incorporated Article V(1)(b) NYC); (ii) the Tribunal's construction of the disputed contracts was so irrational that its decision exceeded the scope of the submission to arbitration, in violation of Section 44(2)(d) of the Ordinance (similarly incorporating Article V(1)(c) NYC); and (iii) enforcing the award would be contrary to public policy, in violation of Section 43 of the Ordinance (incorporating Article V(2)(b) NYC), because the award was obtained through fraud or bad faith. The Court of Appeal dismissed each of Pertamia’s grounds for appeal. First, it held that Pertamina had failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud or bad faith, that its case did not have a reasonable prospect of success, and that, in any case, Pertamina failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the “newly discovered” documents upon which it based its argument, so they could not be introduced in the first instance on appeal. Second, it found that the arbitral tribunal sufficiently explained the basis of the award; therefore, the award was not arbitrary. Third, it found that the tribunal’s construction of the contract was rational and did not amount to a rewriting of the agreement, and chastised Pertamina for attempting to use this argument to engage the Court in an analysis of the merits of the decision. Finally, the Court rejected its argument that the Tribunal’s denial of discovery and adjournment deprived Pertamina of the ability to present its case, because the Tribunal was justified in denying the adjournment, and because Pertamina never requested discovery without an adjournment and so could not complain on appeal of the Tribunal’s failure to sever these issues and consider them separately. affirmed by : affirms : see also :
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / b. Ex officio review, burden of proof and standard of proof / §60
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / b. Procedural public policy / §35
- Hong Kong / 20 December 2002 / Hong Kong, Court of First Instance, In the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region / Karaha Bodas Company LLC v. Persusahaan Pertambangan Minydak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) / HCCT 28/2002
- Hong Kong / 16 June 2008 / Hong Kong, Court of Appeal, In the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region / Karaha Bodas Company LLC v. Persusahaan Pertambangan Minydak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) / CACV 121/2003
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=697&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Date 26 September 2007 Parties Bad Ass Coffee Company of Hawaii Inc. v. Bad Ass Enterprises Inc., Attitude Coffee Corporation and Ron Plucer Case number 0501 12165 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source 2007 ABQB 581 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary Bad Ass Coffee Company of Hawaii Inc. ("BAH") and Bad Ass Enterprises Inc. ("Enterprises") concluded several agreements under a franchise arrangement, through which Enterprises became developers of franchise operations and distributors of Bad Ass brand coffee products in Alberta. A director of Enterprises signed personal guarantees for payment under these agreements. However, these guarantees were not notarized, in violation of the Guarantees Acknowledgment Act of Alberta ("GAA"). A dispute arose out of three agreements, which each contained clauses providing for arbitration in Utah. BAH filed a request for arbitration, but Enterprises objected to the proceedings. BAH filed a petition with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for an order compelling arbitration of the dispute. The Court ordered that the arbitration should proceed. After participating in the pre-hearing conference, Enterprises sought to withdraw from the proceedings as it objected to the jurisdiction of the tribunal and declared that they would not participate in the arbitration hearing. The sole arbitrator then decided the case in favor of BAH. After BAH obtained confirmation of the award through a judgment by the Utah District Court, it sought enforcement of that judgment in Canada. Enterprise argued that enforcement judgment which confirmed the award would violate public policy in Alberta because the guarantees were void under the GAA. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the formal requirements for enforcement had been met, but discussed whether enforcement should be denied on public policy grounds. According to the defendants, enforcement of the judgment was against public policy because the award violated the Alberta Franchises Act. The Court referred to the decision in Beals v. Saldanha ("Beals"), where the Supreme Court of Canada had held that a foreign judgment will not be enforced when the foreign law is contrary to the its view of basic morality. It considered that this authority would also apply in respect of the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Court then reviewed the understanding of public policy in Article V(2)(b) NYC, which it stated covered fundamental principles of law and justice in substantive as well as procedural respects. The Court found that while the standard from Beals can be applied when there is a violation of internal law, there was no violation of public policy in this case has not been met and the Utah judgment that confirmed the award should be enforced. Generally, the Court stated that the public policy exception must be narrowly defined to allow the increasingly global marketplace to operate. affirmed by : Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=582&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 16 July 2007 Parties Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. ST-CMS Electric Co. Private Ltd Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source [2007] EWHC 1713 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1194&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Rubí (Court of First Instance and Preliminary Investigations of Rubí) Date 11 June 2007 Parties Pavan S.r.l. v. Leng d’Or S.A. Case number AJPII 6/2007 Applicable NYC Provisions I | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4016&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Greece Court Greece, Areios Pagos (Supreme Court) Date 16 May 2007 Parties Sea Spray Maritime Ltd. v. Defendant Case number 1066/2007 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | V | V(2) Source http://www.areiospagos.gr (website of the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5986&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas de Gran Canarias (Provincial Court of Las Palmas de Gran Canarias) Date 26 March 2007 Parties Mr. Fermín and Mr. Pedro Antonio v. Mr. Luis Manuel and Ms. Laura Case number AAP GC 434/2007 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4690&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg van de Nederlandse Antillen (District Court of the Netherlands Antilles) Date 08 March 2007 Parties Sir Speedy Inc. v. Defendant Case number EJ 2006/480 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) Source https://www.rechtspraak.nl (official website of the Netherlands judiciary system)
Languages Dutch Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5962&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg van de Nederlandse Antillen (District Court of the Netherlands Antilles) Date 06 March 2007 Parties Imanagement Services Ltd. v. Çukurova Holding A.S. Case number EJ 2006/529A Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(2) | VI Source https://www.rechtspraak.nl (official website of the Netherlands judiciary system)
Languages Dutch Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5963&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 23 January 2007 Parties Entra AB v. Mr. Juan Manuel Case number ATS 463/2007 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(2) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4689&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Higher Regional Court of Naumburg) Date 04 January 2007 Parties 10 Sch 4/06 Case number 10 Sch 4/06 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(2) | VII | VII(1) Source Registry of the Court
Languages German Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4064&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Parket bij de Hoge Raad (Supreme Court Advisory Body) Date 22 December 2006 Case number C05/260HR Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.rechtspraak.nl (official website of the Netherlands judiciary system)
Languages Dutch Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5964&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Argentina Court Argentina, Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo No. 2 de La Plata (First Instance Court for Administrative Matters No. 2 of La Plata) Date 17 November 2006 Parties Milantic Trans S.A. v. Ministerio de la Producción (Astilleros Río Santiago y otro) Case number 4308 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | XI Source www.scba.gov.ar (website of the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Provincia de Buenos Aires)
reversed by : see also : Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4571&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Belgium Court Belgium, Cour de cassation (Belgian Court of Cassation) Date 16 November 2006 Parties Société Van Hopplynus Instruments v. Société Coherent Inc. Case number C.02.0445.F Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(3) | V | V(1) | V(2) Source https://www.juridat.be (portal of the judiciary of Belgium | www.cassonline.be)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3651&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Dutch Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
French Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 26 September 2006 Parties Vans Inc. v. Scott Brabson Case number ATS 12603/2006 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(2) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4018&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Uruguay Court Uruguay, Suprema Corte de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 21 July 2006 Parties Comisión Técnica Mixta de Salto Grande v. Walter D. Amado Campos Case number 106/2006 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | III | IV | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://bjn.poderjudicial.gub.uy (website of the national public case law database)
Languages Spanish Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5830&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Singapore Court Singapore, High Court Date 10 May 2006 Parties Aloe Vera of America, Inc v. Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and Another Case number [2006] 3 SLR 174, [2006] SGHC 104 78, OS 762/2004, RA 327/2005 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4171&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 26 April 2006 Parties D**** S.A. v. W**** GmbH Case number 3Ob211/05h Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages German Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3884&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
