England and Wales, High Court
Available documents (167)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
United Kingdom / 22 May 2014 / England and Wales, High Court / Diag Human SE v. The Czech Republic / 2011 Folio 864
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 22 May 2014 Parties Diag Human SE v. The Czech Republic Case number 2011 Folio 864 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VI Source [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1666&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 30 April 2014 Parties Honeywell International Middle East Limited v. Meydan Group LLC Case number HT-12-372 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(2) Source [2014] EWHC 1344 (TCC) | online: BAILII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3554&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 02 April 2014 Parties La Société Nationale pour la Recherche, la Production, le Transport, la Transformation, et la Commercialisation des Hydrocarbures s.p.a. (“SONATRACH”) v. Statoil Natural Gas LLC Case number 2013 Folios 731 & 935 Source [2014] EWHC 875 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4611&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 14 March 2014 Parties IPCO (Nigeria) Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Case number 2004 Folio 1031 Applicable NYC Provisions VI Source [2014] EWHC 576 (Comm) | online: BAILII
affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3556&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 26 February 2014 Parties BDMS Limited v. Rafael Advanced Defence Systems Case number 2012-192 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source [2014] EWHC 451 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3557&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 26 November 2013 Parties Mr Boris Bannai v. Mr Eitan Shlomo Erez Case number 2013 Folio 1039 &1073 Source [2013] EWHC 3689 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6062&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 07 November 2013 Parties Guidance Investments Ltd v. Guidance Hotel Investment Company BSC Case number 2013-208 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source [2013] EWHC 3413 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1667&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 25 October 2013 Parties Diag Human SE v. The Czech Republic Case number Folio 2011/684 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | VI Source [2013] EWHC 3190 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6061&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 16 May 2013 Parties Golden Ocean Group Ltd v. Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi Tbk Ltd and another Case number 2013- Folio 126 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) | V Source [2013] EWHC 1240 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1672&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 20 December 2012 Parties Arsanovia Limited and others v. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings Case number 2012-1047 Source [2012] EWHC 3702 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5367&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 01 November 2012 Parties Turville Heath Inc v. Chartis Insurance UK Ltd (formerly AIG UK Ltd) Case number HT-12-183 Source [2012] EWHC 3019 (TCC) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1673&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 26 October 2012 Parties Assaubayev v. Michael Wilson Case number 1104228 Source [2012] EWHC 90223 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1674&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 27 July 2012 Parties Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited v. Jet Airways (India) Limited and others Case number HC 08 C01575, HC08 C01577, HC08 C01578, HC10 C00543 & CH/2012/0082 Source [2012] EWHC 2153 (Pat) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5366&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 18 June 2012 Parties Joint Stock Company Aeroflot Russian Airlines v. Berezovsky and others Case number HC10C04393 Source [2012] EWHC 1610 (Ch) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1675&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 30 May 2012 Parties Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC and others v. Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LLP (a firm) and others Case number 2011 Folio 1565 Source [2012] EWHC 1486 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1676&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 25 April 2012 Parties Lombard North Central Plc & Anor v. GATX Corporation Case number 2011-1321 Source [2012] EWHC 1067 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1677&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 04 April 2012 Parties West Tankers Inc v. Allianz SpA and Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA Case number 2011 Folio 564 Source [2012] EWHC 854 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6060&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 23 March 2012 Parties Enercon GmbH Wobben Properties GmbH v. Enercon (India) Ltd Case number 2011 Folio 1399 Source [2012] EWHC 689 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary The claimants were German companies. The defendant, Enercon (India) Ltd (“EIL”), was an Indian company. The claimants asserted an entitlement to monies under an alleged written agreement called the Intellectual Property Licence Agreement (“the IPLA”) between the first claimant, Enercon GmbH Wobben Properties GmbH (“Enercon”) and EIL. The claimants commenced arbitration pursuant to a clause contained in the IPLA providing for arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“the Indian Act”) with a “venue” in London. EIL objected to the tribunal’s jurisdiction on the grounds that: (i) the IPLA was not binding and (ii) in the alternative, while the arbitral clause contained in the IPLA stipulated London as the “venue”, “venue” was not synonymous with “seat” and the proper “seat” of arbitration was India. The claimants applied to the English High Court for (i) a declaration under section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the U.K. Act”) to the effect that EIL was required to refer any dispute arising under the IPLA to arbitration in London, and (ii) an anti-suit injunction enjoining EIL from bringing any proceedings before the Indian courts. Before the hearing of this application, EIL applied to the Indian courts seeking (i) a declaration to the effect that the IPLA was not binding, and (ii) an anti-suit injunction enjoining the claimants from pursuing the English court proceedings (which was granted on an interim basis). Meanwhile, the parties (EIL under protest) appointed two arbitrators in the London arbitral proceedings. The party-appointed arbitrators were unable to agree on the appointment of a third arbitrator. The claimants thereafter issued fresh proceedings before the English High Court, seeking (i) the appointment of a third arbitrator under section 18(a) of the U.K. Act, (ii) an anti-suit injunction enjoining EIL from bringing any proceedings before the Indian courts and (iii) an injunction restraining EIL from interfering with the application for the appointment by the Court of a third arbitrator. Both injunctions were granted on an interim basis. The claimants subsequently made a further application for a freezing injunction against EIL, which was also granted. EIL applied to have the injunctions set aside. On the hearing of these applications, the High Court held that the English court proceedings for the appointment of a third arbitrator should be stayed pending the final determination by the Indian court as to the binding nature of the IPLA and the proper seat of the arbitration. The Court considered that it should be extremely cautious to intervene in the arbitration when the Indian court proceedings were still pending. It stated that it reached its decision out of respect for the principle of comity and in order to avoid a “recipe for confusion and injustice”, but that it did so reluctantly, noting that there had been significant delays in the Indian court proceedings. It therefore indicated that the stay would be for a limited duration only and conditional on EIL undertaking to take all necessary steps to expedite the Indian court proceedings. The Court also noted that it would have concluded that the arbitral seat was London, based on an objective reading of the IPLA and the claimants’ submissions that the parties had intentionally chosen a seat outside India, so as to render any award enforceable in India under the provisions of the Indian Act giving effect to the NYC (whereas, if the seat was in India, the award would have been a domestic award and thus not enforceable under said provisions). The Court stated that in an international contract of this type, with parties of different nationality, the desirability of enforceability of an award under the NYC was a legitimate commercial reason to construe the agreement as contended by the claimants. The Court also set aside the injunctions. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1420&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 02 February 2012 Parties Nomihold Securities Inc v. Mobile Telesystems Finance SA Case number 2011-95 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source [2012] EWHC 130 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1678&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 23 November 2011 Parties Five Oceans Salvage Ltd v. Wenzhou Timber Group Co. Case number 2011 Folio No. 1265 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) Source [2011] EWHC 3282 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary Five Oceans Salvage Ltd (“Five Oceans”) concluded a salvage agreement with the owners of the vessel “The Medea K”, whose cargo belonged to the Wenzhou Timber Group Co. (“WTG”). The agreement provided that, in the event the salvage operation was a success, Five Oceans’ remuneration therefor would be determined by arbitration in London. The salvage operation was successful and, by an interim award issued in April 2010 and a final award issued in January 2011, a sole arbitrator fixed the total amount payable to Five Oceans by WTG. Five Oceans sought enforcement of the awards against WTG in the courts of the People’s Republic of China (“the PRC”). WTG resisted enforcement on the grounds, inter alia, that it had not authorised its insurance representative to act on its behalf during the arbitral proceedings, of which it had not been given notice (citing Article V(1)(b) NYC), and that it had never authorised the insurance representative to act on its behalf during the salvage operation or the arbitration proceedings (citing Article V(1)(d) NYC). Five Oceans thereafter discontinued the Chinese enforcement proceedings and sued WTG’s insurance representative for breach of warranty of authority before the English High Court. It also brought applications under: (i) section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the Act”), for a determination as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator (seeking, in particular, a ruling to the effect that, by reason of the breach of natural justice caused to WTG, the sole arbitrator retained jurisdiction to issue a further award) and (ii) section 68(2)(a),(b) and (c) of the Act, to have the earlier awards set aside on the ground of serious irregularity insofar as the arbitrator had failed to require that written notice of the arbitral proceedings be given to WTG. The High Court dismissed the applications. In relation to the section 32 application, it found that the arbitrator was functus officio and did not retain jurisdiction to make any further award against WTG. In relation to the section 68 application, it found that the arbitrator had complied with his general duty under the Act to act fairly and impartially as between the parties and that nothing would have put the arbitrator on notice that WTG was not duly and properly represented by its representative in the proceedings, or that the conduct of the proceedings was contrary to the procedure agreed on by the parties. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1426&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 29 September 2011 Parties African Fertilizers and Chemicals Nig Ltd (Nigeria) v. BD Shipsnavo GmbH & Co. Reederei Kg Case number 2011 FOLIO 900 Source [2011] EWHC 2452 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1192&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 01 August 2011 Parties Nomihold Securities Inc v. Mobile Telesystems Finance SA Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) Source [2011] EWHC 2143 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6059&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 27 July 2011 Parties Dowans Holding S.A. v. Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd Case number 2010 Folio 1539 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | VI Source [2011] EWHC 1957 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary Dowans Holding S.A. and Dowans Tanzania (collectively, “Dowans”) entered into an electricity supply agreement with Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd (“TANESCO”), a State-owned utility company (“the Agreement”). The Agreement provided for arbitration in Tanzania under Tanzanian law in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. TANESCO purported to terminate the Agreement on the basis that it was void ab initio for contravening the Tanzanian Public Procurement Act 2004. Dowans commenced arbitral proceedings in Tanzania. The arbitral tribunal found that the Agreement was valid and rendered an award against TANESCO. TANESCO applied to have the award set aside in the Tanzanian courts. Meanwhile, Dowans obtained enforcement of the award in the English High Court pursuant to section 101(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the Act”) (providing for enforcement as a judgment or order of the court of an NYC award, as defined by the Act). TANESCO then applied to the Court to have the enforcement order set aside pursuant to section 103(2)(f) of the Act (incorporating Article V(1)(e) NYC regarding the refusal to recognise or enforce an award where the award is not yet binding, has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, it was made). Alternatively, it sought to adjourn the issue of recognition or enforcement pending final determination of the Tanzanian proceedings pursuant to section 103(5) of the Act (incorporating Article VI NYC regarding adjournment of the decision on the recognition or enforcement of the award where an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, it was made). Dowans opposed the application and requested, in the event an adjournment was granted, partial recognition of the award and/or an order for security. The High Court granted TANESCO’s application for an adjournment. However, it also granted Dowan’s application for an order for security. First, the Court considered that the fact that there was a challenge to the award pending before the Tanzanian courts did not mean that the award was “not yet binding” within the meaning of that section. It noted that there was no definition of the word “binding” in the NYC or under the Act. It also referred to the NYC’s abolition of the requirement in the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927 of double exequatur (i.e., the need, before an award could be enforced in another jurisdiction, that it first have been rendered enforceable in the country in which, or under the law of which, it was made). Second, the Court observed that even if the award has been set aside in the home jurisdiction, there was still discretion to set aside, enforce or adjourn the award both pursuant to section 103(2)(f) and Article V(1)(e) NYC. In the Court’s view, its discretion under section 103(2)(f) would inevitably be exercised in the same manner as the discretion to adjourn under section 103(5). Third, the Court found that TANESCO’s prospects of success in the proceedings before the Tanzanian courts were not fanciful and hence real, such as to justify an adjournment, but only coupled with an order for security. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1178&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
