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 / 18 December 2003 / England and Wales, High Court / Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v. New India Assurance Association Co. Ltd (The “Hari Bhum”) / 2003 Folio 442
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 18 December 2003 Parties Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v. New India Assurance Association Co. Ltd (The “Hari Bhum”) Case number 2003 Folio 442 Source [2003] EWHC 3158 | online: BAILII
Languages English affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1199&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 10 October 2003 Parties ICL Shipping Limited and Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v. Chin Tai Steel Enterprise Co Ltd and Others Case number 2003 Folio 268 Source [2003] EWHC 2320 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6038&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 21 August 2003 Parties Socadec S.A. v. Pan Afric Impex Company Limited Case number 2003 Folio No. 606 Source [2003] EWHC 2086 (QB) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6455&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 30 July 2003 Parties Mahonia Limited v. JPMorgan Chase Bank and WestLB AG Case number 2002 Folio 1400 Source [2003] EWHC 1927 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6454&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 06 May 2003 Parties Electronic Arts CV v. CTO SpA Case number 2003/306 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) Source [2003] EWHC 1020 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6037&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 16 April 2003 Parties Evialis S.A. v. S.I.A.T. and Others Case number 2002/1337 Source [2003] EWHC 863 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6453&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 10 January 2003 Parties Good Challenger Navegante S.A. v. Metalexportimport S.A. Case number 2000 Folio No. 1250 Source [2003] EWHC 10 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6451&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 28 November 2002 Parties American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Abbott Laboratories Case number Folio No. 1139 of 2002 Source [2002] EWHC 2714 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6036&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 18 October 2002 Parties Norsk Hydro v. Republic of Ukraine Case number 2002/441 Source [2002] EWHC 2120 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary Norsk Hydro, a Norwegian aluminium metal supplier, entered into a contract with the State Property Fund of Ukraine for the development of a hydro terminal. The relationship between the owners of the terminal was governed by an Owner’s Agreement (“the OA”). Disputes arose and Norsk Hydro commenced arbitration pursuant to the OA, which contained an arbitration clause governed by Swedish law and providing for ad hoc arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL arbitration rules, with the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce as the appointing authority. An award was rendered ex parte in favour of Norsk Hydro. Norsk Hydro applied to the High Court for permission to enforce the award and for an order that judgment be entered for damages and other sums as set out in the award. The order was granted. The Ukraine applied to set aside the order on the ground, inter alia, that the OA was entered into by the State Property Fund alone, as principal, and not as an agent for the Ukraine. Further or alternatively, the Ukraine argued it was not a party to an arbitration agreement in writing pursuant to section 100(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the Act”). The High Court granted the Ukraine’s order to set aside the order to enforce the award on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order to enforce an award against the Ukraine, which was not a party to the arbitration agreement. In rendering its judgment, the Court referred to section 100 of the Act, which provides for the recognition and enforcement of NYC awards. The Court discussed the important policy interest in the United Kingdom of ensuring the effective and speedy enforcement of international arbitration awards. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1175&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 28 August 2002 Parties ABCI v. Banque Franco-Tunisienne Case number 1993 FOLIO No. 993 Source [2002] EWHC 2024 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5353&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 19 January 2001 Parties Tongyuan (USA) International Trading Group v. Uni-Clan Ltd Case number 2000 Folio No. 1143 Source [Unreported]
Languages English Summary Uni-clan (the sellers) and Tongyuan (the buyers) entered into a contract for the sale, installation and testing of sachet-filling machines in China. The contract provided for arbitration by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC"), in one of two named locations. Disputes arose and Tongyuan pursued arbitration in accordance with the parties' arbitration agreement. Uni-Clan, in the main, did not participate in the hearings. The tribunal issued an award in favour of Tongyuan. Tongyuan obtained leave to enforce the award in the United Kingdom. Uni-Clan sought to have the order granting leave to enforce set aside on three grounds. First, that the award was a nullity under section 103(2)(e) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article (V)(1)(d) NYC), because the hearings had been held in a location different from those agreed in the contract. Second, that the award was not expressed in a form enforceable as a judgment. Third, that Uni-Clan should be permitted to cross-claim in relation to the award. The third claim invoked the public policy ground for non-enforcement under section 103(3) of the Act (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(2)(b) NYC). The High Court refused to set aside the order granting leave to enforce. It held first, that the different hearing location did not render the award a nullity, noting that there was no prejudice to Uni-Clan because it had not participated in the hearings. Second, that the form of the award did not preclude judgment; thus, it was unnecessary to determine whether this was a ground on which enforcement might be refused under section 101 of the Act (providing for the enforcement of NYC awards as judgments). Third, that the award was not unenforceable under the public policy ground of section 103(3) in the Act. In so ruling, the Court distinguished between unfairness in the rendering of an award and unfairness after the award has been rendered. In the latter case, the validity of the award is not at issue. Noting the strong public policy in favour of enforcing awards, the Court held that the cross-claim by Uni-Clan did not warrant non-enforcement of an otherwise valid NYC award. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=509&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 16 November 2000 Parties Navigation Maritime Bulgare v. Rustal Trading Ltd and others (The “Ivan Zabanski”) Case number 2000 Folio No: 576 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source [2000] EWHC 222 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1200&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 14 April 2000 Parties Vale do Rio Doce Navegacao S.A. and anor v. Shanghai Bao Steel Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd and anor Case number 1999 Folio 1281 Source [2000] EWHC 205 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1201&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 24 May 1999 Parties Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation SA v. Hilmarton Ltd Case number 1998 Folio No 1003 Source [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 146
Languages English Summary Hilmarton Limited ("Hilmarton") contracted with Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation ("OTV") to procure a public contract for OTV in Algeria. The contract, which was governed by Swiss law, provided for arbitration in Switzerland under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. A payment-related dispute arose and Hilmarton initiated arbitration, which ultimately resulted in an award being made in its favour. The tribunal rejected OTV's request to dismiss Hilmarton's claim on the ground that it violated the law of the contract's place of performance (Algeria), which prohibited intermediaries in connection with public contracts. The tribunal found that although Algerian law had been breached, there was no evidence of bribery or corruption. Nor had Swiss law or public policy been violated. Hilmarton sought enforcement of the award in the United Kingdom. OTV resisted enforcement on the ground that the contract was unlawful in its place of performance. The High Court refused to set aside a prior order giving effect to the award. Specifically, it held that the award was not unenforceable for public policy reasons under section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(2)(b) NYC). Absent a finding of fact of corrupt practices, which would give rise to separate public policy considerations, the Court reasoned that it is not contrary to English public policy for a tribunal to enforce a contract which does not offend domestic public policy per either the proper law of the contract or the curial law of the arbitration, even if English law might arrive at a different result. The Court also rejected challenges to enforcement under the following provisions of the Act: sections 103(2)(c) (on the ground that OTV was otherwise unable to present its case) and 103(2)(e) (on the ground that the procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties) (which provisions directly incorporate and whose wording is equivalent to Articles V(1)(b) and (V)(1)(d) NYC, respectively). see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=885&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 20 January 1999 Parties Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel Ltd Applicable NYC Provisions V Source [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 315 | online: DSPlaw
Languages English Summary Ferco Steel Limited ("Ferco") contracted to sell steel channels to Minmetals Germany GmbH ("Minmetals") in China. Minmetals sold the steel channels to a sub-buyer. A dispute arose and Minmetals initiated arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the contract before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC"). The same tribunal had previously arbitrated a dispute between Minmetals and the sub-buyer, and referred to its award in that arbitration ("the sub-sale award") in its later award made in favour of Minmetals against Ferco. A Chinese court remitted the dispute to the tribunal on the basis that Ferco had not been afforded the opportunity to present its views concerning the sub-sale award. In the resumed arbitration proceeding, Ferco did not make any submissions on the tribunal's consideration of the sub-sale award. The second award maintained the first award. The Chinese court dismissed Ferco's subsequent application for revocation of the second award. Minmetals obtained leave to enforce both awards in the United Kingdom. Ferco resisted enforcement on various grounds. The High Court refused to set aside the order granting leave to enforce. In so ruling, it noted that the resisting party bears the burden of proof, citing sections 102(1) and 102(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporate and whose wording is equivalent to Articles IV(1) and IV(2) NYC). The Court held that Ferco had failed to establish any of its grounds for non-enforcement. First, Ferco's claim under section 103(2)(d) of the Act (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Articles V(1)(c) NYC) failed. Second, Ferco had failed to establish inability to present its case under section 103(2)(c) of the Act (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(1)(b) NYC). The Court found that Ferco had failed to take the opportunity to present its case on the sub-sale award in the resumed arbitration proceeding. Third, Ferco had failed to establish the ground based on section 103(2)(e) (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(1)(d) NYC). While the tribunal had initially violated CIETAC rules by failing to give Ferco an opportunity to address the sub-sale award, it had done so in the resumed hearing. Fourth, Ferco had failed to make out any public policy ground under section 103(3) (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(2)(b) NYC). The Court noted that in situations where the supervisory court had refused to revoke the final award due to a procedural defect, public policy favoured enforcing NYC awards. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=456&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 19 December 1997 Parties Westacre Investments Inc v. Jugoimport-SDRP Holding Co Ltd Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source [1998] 3 W.L.R. 770 | online: ICLR
Languages English Summary Summary in preparation affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1187&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 20 January 1997 Parties China Agribusiness Development Corporation v. Balli Trading Source [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 76
Languages English Summary The parties entered into a contract for the sale of steel coils. The contract contained an arbitration agreement referring disputes to the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade ("FETAC"), under FETAC's provisional rules. A dispute arose, by which time FETAC had been renamed the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC"). CIETAC's award, which was mainly in favour of the buyer, was made under the CIETAC rules in force at the time of arbitration, rather than the FETAC provisional rules stipulated in the contract. When the buyer attempted to enforce the award in the United Kingdom, the seller resisted on the ground that the award violated section 5(2)(e) of the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(1)(d) NYC) because the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties' agreement. In particular, the fee arrangements were different under the two sets of rules. The High Court refused to set aside leave to enforce the award. It held that the parties had agreed to the rules of FETAC or a successor institution that were in effect when the arbitration began. Were it otherwise, the court would exercise its discretion derived from the word "may" in section 5(2) of the Act to enforce the award. In this case, the difference in fee arrangements between the two sets of rules did not sufficiently prejudice the losing party to justify non-enforcement. The Court also noted that this argument had been raised very late in the proceedings. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=527&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
