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 / 21 April 2008 / England and Wales, High Court / Sheltam Rail Company (Proprietary) Limited v. Mirambo Holdings Limited and Primefuels (Kenya) Limited / 2007/1668
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 21 April 2008 Parties Sheltam Rail Company (Proprietary) Limited v. Mirambo Holdings Limited and Primefuels (Kenya) Limited Case number 2007/1668 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(c) Source [2008] EWHC 829 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5359&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 17 April 2008 Parties IPCO v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. Case number 2004 Folio 1031 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | VI Source [2008] EWHC 797 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd (“IPCO”) was the Nigerian subsidiary of a Hong Kong company. It agreed to construct a petroleum export terminal for the State-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. (“NNPC”). The contract contained a clause providing for arbitration in Nigeria under Nigerian law. Disputes arose under the contract and were referred to arbitration. The tribunal rendered an award in favour of IPCO. NNPC applied to the Nigerian courts to have the award set aside. Meanwhile, IPCO sought enforcement of the award in the English High Court. The Court ordered enforcement under 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). NNPC then applied to the Court to set aside the enforcement order pursuant to section 103(2)(f) of the Act (incorporating Article V(1)(e) NYC regarding refusal to recognise or enforce an award where, inter alia, the award has been set aside by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, it was made) and section 103(3) of the Act (incorporating Article V(2) NYC regarding refusal to recognise or enforce an award where, inter alia, it would be contrary to public policy to do so). In the alternative, NNPC sought to adjourn enforcement 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). IPCO applied for security in the event that enforcement be adjourned. The Court dismissed NNPC’s application to have the enforcement order set aside, but agreed to adjourn enforcement on condition that NNPC pay a sum indisputably due to IPCO under the contract, in addition to U.S. $50 million by way of security. Several years later, IPCO requested that the adjournment be lifted on the ground that NNPC’s challenge to the award before the Nigerian courts was taking much longer than anticipated. In addition, it submitted that the Court had been materially misled as to the strength of that challenge. The High Court varied the order adjourning enforcement to permit judgment to be entered in terms of certain discrete parts of the award which it considered were capable of immediate enforcement and in respect of which it held that the Court at first instance had been misled. It also had regard to the serious delays in the Nigerian court proceedings. However, it saw no reason for revisiting the rest of the conclusions of the Court at first instance as to the strength of the challenge to the award. Accordingly, it adjourned the decision on enforcement of the balance of the award. In so ruling, the Court noted that the possibility of partial enforcement of the award was clearly referred to in section 103(4) of the Act and Article V(1)(c) NYC (providing for recognition or enforcement of an award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration to the extent that it contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration that can be separated from those on matters not so submitted). That the possibility of partial enforcement was recognised expressly only in this limited jurisdictional context did not, in the Court’s view, lead to the conclusion, either under the NYC or the Act, that it was not available in other circumstances. Moreover, the Court was not dissuaded by the fact that the parties had been unable to point to any other examples of partial enforcement. In this regard, the Court referred to Article III NYC (providing that “[e]ach Contracting State shall recognise arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied on”), concluding that the Court was not concerned to ensure that the English approach to recognition and enforcement be the same as that adopted in other Contracting States. affirmed by : see also :
- United Kingdom / 27 April 2005 / England and Wales, High Court / IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC) / 2004 1031
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(3) / a.The territorial criterion and the reciprocity reservation / §74
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / a. The absence of a standard / §25
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(1) / a. Awards “made in the territory of a State other than the State where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought” / §45
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1191&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 20 March 2008 Parties Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v. Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. Case number 2008 Folio 61 Source [2008] EWHC 532 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1437&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 15 February 2008 Parties Gater Assets Ltd v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy Case number 2006 Folio No. 460 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source [2008] EWHC 237 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary The claimant, Gater Assets Limited (“Gater”), was the assignee of an arbitration award made by the International Commercial Court in Moscow against the defendant Ukrainian company, Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy (“Naftogaz”). It obtained an order for enforcement of the award in England under section 101 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the Act”). Naftogaz applied to have the order set aside, invoking section 103 of the Act (giving effect to Article V NYC). It argued, inter alia, that the award had been procured by fraudulent or reprehensible or unconscionable conduct, such that its enforcement would be contrary to public policy. The High Court held that there was no basis upon which to set aside the enforcement order. In so ruling, it found that nothing short of “reprehensible or unconscionable conduct” would suffice to invest the court with a discretion to consider denying to the award recognition or enforcement. That meant conduct effectively amounting to fraud, or conduct dishonestly intended to mislead. In this case, Naftogaz had not demonstrated that the award had been procured by conduct fitting such a description. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=895&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 21 November 2007 Parties Kazakhstan v. Istil Group Inc. Case number 2004 Folio 579 Source [2007] EWHC 2729 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1195&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 18 October 2007 Parties Samsun Logix Corporation v. Oceantrade Corporation; Deval Denizeilik VE Ticaret A.S. v. Oceantrade Corporation and Samsun Logix Corporation Case number 205-681: 2007-421 Source [2007] EWHC 2372 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6047&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 01 August 2007 Parties Starlight Shipping Co. v. Tai Ping Insurance Co. Ltd (Hubei Branch) Case number 2007 FOLIO 1108 Source [2007] EWHC 1893 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1438&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 https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1194&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 28 June 2007 Parties C v. D Case number 2007 Folio No. 540 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source [2007] EWHC 1541 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary C, a U.S. corporation, entered into an insurance policy with D, a U.S. insurance company with an English branch. The policy was governed by New York law and provided for arbitration in London under the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the U.K. Act"). A dispute arose and an arbitration took place in London. The tribunal issued a partial award in C's favour. This award was agreed to be final under English law as to the matters it decided. D applied to the tribunal to correct the award and also declared its intention to request a U.S. court to vacate the award. D claimed that the award was outside the scope of the NYC and could be vacated under U.S. law because the tribunal had manifestly disregarded New York law. The tribunal made clerical amendments to the award but refused to substantively amend it. C applied to the High Court for an anti-suit injunction enjoining D from seeking any recourse in a U.S. court. C argued that the award could only be challenged under the U.K. Act and could only be refused enforcement on Article V NYC grounds. C also claimed that challenging the award in a non-English forum was inconsistent with the scheme of the U.K. Act and the NYC. D responded that according to U.S. arbitration law, the award was not a NYC award and could therefore be challenged in the United States. The High Court granted the anti-suit injunction. The Court noted that if, under U.S. law, the award was not a NYC award and so could be challenged on grounds other than Article V NYC, the incorporation of the NYC into U.S. domestic law did not seem to fulfil NYC treaty obligations, at least from an English perspective. Ultimately, however, the Court decided that it did not need to determine this issue. It held that, by choosing an English arbitral seat and arbitration under the U.K. Act, the parties had agreed to restrict judicial remedies to those available under English law and in an English forum. The Court also noted that D's ability to challenge enforcement of the award under Article V NYC in another jurisdiction was not affected. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=874&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 29 March 2007 Parties Albon (t/a N A Carriage Co.) v. Naza Motor Trading SDN BHD Case number HC05C02150 Source [2007] EWHC 665 (Ch) | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1439&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 22 March 2007 Parties Gater Assets Ltd v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy Case number 2006 Folio No. 460 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | V Source [2007] EWHC 697 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary The claimant, Gater Assets Limited (“Gater”), was the assignee of an arbitration award made by the International Commercial Court in Moscow against the defendant Ukrainian company, Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy (“Naftogaz”). It sought enforcement of the award in England under section 101 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the Act”). Naftogaz resisted enforcement and sought security for costs. The High Court made the order for security. In so ruling, it rejected an argument that it had no jurisdiction to order security against an award creditor in respect of a “Convention award” (being defined under the Act as “an award made in pursuance of an arbitration agreement in the territory of a state, other than the United Kingdom, which is a party to the [NYC]”). It reasoned that the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) regime for security for costs applied to claims made under both section 66 of the Act to enforce domestic awards and section 101 of the Act to enforce Convention awards. It followed that there was no breach of Article III NYC, which required simply that any “conditions”, in the sense of rules and provisions, imposed vis-à-vis enforcement of a Convention award not be more onerous than those imposed vis-à-vis enforcement of a domestic award. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=894&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 20 March 2007 Parties Elektrim S.A. v. Vivendi Universal S.A. Case number 2007/91 Source [2007] EWHC 571 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1440&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 19 January 2007 Parties Elektrim S.A. v. Vivendi Universal SA, Vivendi Telecom International SA, Elektrim Telekomunikacja Sp. z.o.o. and Carcom Warzsaw Sp. z.o.o. Case number 2006/695 Source [2007] EWHC 11 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6458&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 28 July 2006 Parties A v. B Case number 2005 Folio 683 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source [2006] EWHC 2006 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1456&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 09 June 2006 Parties Vertex Data Science Limited v. Powergen Retail Limited Case number 2006 Folio No. 320 Source [2006] EWHC 1340 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6456&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 04 November 2005 Parties Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v. Government of Lithuania and AB Geonafta Case number 2004 Folio 272 Source [2005] EWCA Civ 1116 | online: BAILII
Languages English affirmed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1457&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 10 May 2005 Parties Konkola Copper Mines Plc v. Coromin Case number 2004 Folio 450 Source [2005] EWHC 898 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6041&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 29 April 2005 Parties The Republic of Ecuador v. Occidental Exploration and Production Company Case number 2004 FOLIO 656 Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) Source [2005] EWHC 774 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English affirmed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5357&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 21 March 2005 Parties West Tankers Inc v. RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA and Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA Case number 2004 FOLIO 574 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source [2005] EWHC 454 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English affirmed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5356&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 14 January 2005 Parties Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd v. ZCCM Investment Holdings Plc Case number 2004/826 Source [2005] EWHC 156 (QB) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6040&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 28 July 2004 Parties Tame Shipping Ltd v. Easy Navigation Ltd Case number 2004 Folio 150 Source [2004] EWHC 1862 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6457&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 27 May 2004 Parties Atlanska Plovidba v. Consignaciones Asturianas S.A. Case number 2004 Folio 104 (Comm) Source [2004] EWHC 1273 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1459&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
