Egypt, Court of Cassation
Available documents (17)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Egypt / 27 October 2020 / Egypt, Court of Cassation / 18309/89
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 27 October 2020 Case number 18309/89 Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6478&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 09 January 2020 Parties The legal representative of Interfood Co. v. The legal representative of RCMA Asia Pte Ltd Singapore Case number 282/89 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5708&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 24 December 2019 Parties Mr. Mohamed Abbas Ghazi Elewa El-Naggar v. Mr. Hatem Hussein Mohamed Ahmed (in his capacity as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Mansoura Sporting Club) et al. Case number 1458/89 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5704&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 13 March 2018 Parties Capital Broadcasting Center (“CBC”) v. QSoft & Bassem Youssef Case number 2698/86, 3100/86 & 3299/86 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4579&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 28 April 2015 Parties Cairo General Contracting Company v. Mr. Abd Al-Rahman Hassan Sharbatly, Mr. Talal Jameel Abo Al-Enein in his capacity as the liquidator of the Saudi-Egyptian Company for Contracting and the Minister of Housing Case number 5000/78 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4400&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 06 April 2015 Parties El Nasr Company for Fertilizers & Chemical Industries (SEMADCO) v. The Minister of Justice, the Secretary General of the Cairo Court of Appeals and the Head of the Bailiff Department at Al-Nozha Court Case number 15912/76 Applicable NYC Provisions III Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4399&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 28 March 2011 Parties Engineering Industries Company & Sobhi A. Farid Institute v. Roadstar Management & Roadstar International Case number 1042/73 Languages English Summary The Parties entered into a contract for the transfer of know-how, which provided for the settlement of disputes by arbitration in Lugano, Switzerland, in accordance with the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”). On 4 February 2002, an arbitral award was rendered under Swiss law ordering Engineering Industries Company and Sobhi A. Farid Institute (“the Claimants”) to pay damages to Roadstar Management and Roadstar International. The Claimants filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting a suspension of the enforcement of the award and its setting aside. On 29 September 2003, the Cairo Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction over the Claimants’ request. On 23 November 2003, the Claimants challenged the judgment of the Cairo Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation, alleging that the Cairo Court of Appeal had incorrectly applied the law by deciding that it lacked jurisdiction over the Claimant’s lawsuit even though the contract for the transfer of know-how was governed by the New Commercial Code, which provides for the jurisdiction of Egyptian Courts over disputes arising from contracts for the transfer of technology. The Court of Cassation dismissed the Claimants’ challenge. It concluded that the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law is limited by Article 1 to arbitration proceedings held in Egypt and to international arbitration proceedings which the Parties have agreed to submit to the Egyptian Arbitration Law. It added that this position complies with the NYC, to which Egypt had acceded by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959. The Court held that the dispute between the Parties regarding the arbitration proceedings had to be submitted to the Swiss Courts and not to Egyptian Courts, given that the Parties had agreed that their disputes were to be settled by arbitration in Lugano, and in the absence of any evidence establishing an agreement to apply the Egyptian Arbitration Law. The Court also noted that the New Commercial Code does not apply to the Parties’ contract because the contract was concluded after its entry into force. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=970&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 23 February 2010 Parties Nile Cotton Ginning Company v. Cargill Limited Case number 913/73 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V Source Registry of the Court
affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4398&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 08 May 2008 Parties The Holding Company for Chemical Industries v. United World Limited Inc. Case number 945/69 Applicable NYC Provisions III Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4397&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 22 January 2008 Parties Misr Foreign Trade Co. v. R.D Harboties (Mercantile) Case number 2010/64 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(1)(a) Languages English Summary On 16 November 1977, Misr Foreign Trade Co. (“Misr Foreign Trade”) and R.D Harboties (Mercantile) (“Harboties”) concluded a contract for the supply of fertilizers which provided in its Article 13 for arbitration in London. Claiming that one of the conditions of the contract was breached, Harboties initiated arbitration proceedings which led to the issuance of an arbitral award ordering Misr Foreign Trade to pay damages to Harboties. Misr Foreign Trade then filed a claim before the South Cairo Court of First Instance requesting a declaration that it was not liable for any obligations under the contract, but the Court rejected its claim on 15 December 1991 because it had already been settled by the arbitral award. The decision of the Court of First Instance was confirmed by the Cairo Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 30 December 1993. Misr Foreign Trade challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged (i) that the arbitral award issued in its regard was a preliminary award and not a definitive one, which is contrary to Article V(1)(e) NYC, (ii) that Misr Foreign Trade signed the contract on behalf of other entities, meaning that the contract and the arbitration agreement it contained were binding to these entities and not Misr Foreign Trade which is not a party to the arbitration agreement according to Articles II and V(1)(a) NYC, and (iii) that the award was contrary to public policy as it breached Article 226 of the Civil Code by awarding interest from the date they were due and not from the date of the award. The Court of Cassation rejected the Claimant's challenge . The Court considered that arbitral awards have a res judicata effect (“autorité de la chose jugée”) starting from the date of their issuance and maintain this res judicata effect as long as they exist. The Court rejected the claim made by Misr Foreign Trade that the arbitral award was not definitive as well as its claim that it is not a party to the arbitration agreement given that it signed the contract containing said arbitration agreement. The Court also ruled that the arbitral award was not contrary to public policy as Article 226 of the Civil Code is a mandatory rule that is unrelated to public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=389&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 28 February 2006 Parties Alexandria Oil and Soap Company (AOSCO) v. Alexandria Company for Shipping Agencies Case number 595/63 Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4396&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 10 January 2005 Parties El Nasr Company for Fertilizers & Chemical Industries (SEMADCO) v. John Brown Deutsche Engineering Case number 966/73 Applicable NYC Provisions V | III | V(2)(b) Languages English Summary On 26 March 2001, an arbitral tribunal seated in Geneva, Switzerland, issued an award ordering El Nasr Company for Fertilizers & Chemical Industries (SEMADCO) to pay damages to John Brown Deutsche Engineering (“John Brown”). On 10 July 2002, John Brown’s request for enforcement was rejected by the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal. John Brown challenged the Chairman’s order before the Court of Appeal which, in a judgment dated 6 August 2003, overruled the Chairman’s order and granted enforcement to the award. SEMADCO challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged that the arbitral award was contrary to public policy in Egypt and its enforcement should be rejected in accordance with Article V(2)(b) NYC. SEMADCO also alleged that the Courts of First Instance and not the Cairo Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to rule on the enforcement of the award given that Article III NYC provides for the application of the rules of procedure applicable in Egypt which are the rules of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”) and Article 297 provides for the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance to rule on enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Court of Cassation rejected SEMADCO’s challenge and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal granting enforcement to the award. It noted that SEMADCO did not determine in which respect the arbitral award contravened public policy in Egypt. It added that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959 and the NYC is applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State and its Article III provides that the contracting States shall not impose substantially more onerous conditions on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. The term “rules of procedure” mentioned in the NYC is not limited to the Code of Procedure but includes all laws organizing the proceedings such as the Arbitration Law which is a procedural law falling under the term “rules of procedure”. Given that the provisions of the Code of Procedure provide for more onerous conditions than those provided by the provisions of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, the latter should apply to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Court concluded that Egyptian Arbitration Law provided for the jurisdiction of the Cairo Court of Appeal to rule on the enforcement of arbitral awards. affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=834&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 01 March 1999 Parties Arab Investment Urbanization v. Mecana Rbed Case number 10350/65 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(d) Languages English Summary On 18 September 1978, Arab Investment Urbanization (“Arab Investment”) and Mecana Rbed (“Mecana”) entered into a contract by which Mecana undertook to design and build a hotel. The contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”). On 3 June 1985, an arbitral award was rendered ordering Arab Investment to pay damages to Mecana. On 20 November 1993, the South Cairo Court of First Instance granted enforcement to the arbitral award at Mecana’s request. On 24 July 1995, the Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance. Arab Investment challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged that the arbitration agreement required obtaining a report from the ICC International Centre for Expertise before submitting the dispute to arbitration. Given that no such recourse ever occurred, Arab Investment maintained that enforcement of the award should have been rejected by the Court of Appeal pursuant to Article V(1)(d) NYC. Arab Investment also alleged that the ICC Rules had been breached because the Chairman of the arbitral tribunal lacked independence and impartiality and that the Egyptian Arbitration Law was breached since the arbitral award was not signed by the arbitrator appointed by Arab Investment and the award included no explanation of the reasons behind the arbitrator’s decision not to sign it. The Court of Cassation rejected the challenge made by Arab Investment and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal granting enforcement to the award. The Court considered that, pursuant to Article 301 of the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the provisions of treaties concluded by Egypt should apply. Given that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the NYC is applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State, even when it contradicts the Egyptian Arbitration Law. The Court rejected Arab Investment’s challenge of the arbitral award for not including any explanation of the reasons behind the decision of the arbitrator appointed by Arab Investment not to sign the award, reasoning that this is not required by the NYC. It rejected Arab Investment’s other challenges given that Arab Investment did not provide any evidence that the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings were in violation of the Parties’ agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, of the law of the seat of arbitration. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=387&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 27 March 1996 Parties Egyptian Concrete Company & Hashem Ali Maher v. STC Finance & Ismail Ibrahim Mahmoud Thabet & Sabishi Trading and Contracting Company Case number 2660/59 Applicable NYC Provisions V | II | I | II(1) | I(2) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) Languages English Summary A contract for the lease of equipment was concluded on 16 November 1982 and provided for the application of Swedish law and for the settlement of all disputes arising from its interpretation or performance by arbitration in Sweden. After Egyptian Concrete Company and Hashem Ali Maher (“the Claimants”) stopped paying the rent, arbitration proceedings were initiated and an award was rendered on 4 July 1985 ordering the Claimants to pay damages to STC Finance (“STC”) and Sabishi Trading and Contracting Company (“Sabishi”) and to return the equipment. On 14 January 1987, the North Cairo Court of First Instance accepted STC’s request for granting enforcement to the arbitral award. This ruling was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 20 May 1989. The Claimants challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged (i) that the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied the law since the contract for the lease of equipment, as well as the arbitration agreement it contained, was never concluded, (ii) that the arbitration agreement in question only determined the applicable law and the place of the arbitration without determining the names of the arbitrators or the arbitration body administering the dispute as is required by the NYC, (iii) that the Claimants were not given notice of the commencement of the arbitration proceedings, the names of the arbitrators or summoned to appear in accordance with Swedish law and the NYC, (iv) that the award could not be granted enforcement before having verified whether Sabishi owned the equipment concerned or whether it was owned by a third party, and (v) that the Court of Appeal did not verify whether Egyptian Courts had jurisdiction over the dispute, as is required by the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”), before granting enforcement to the arbitral award. The Court of Cassation rejected the Claimants’ challenge and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal granting enforcement to the award. It considered that the NYC presumes that arbitral awards are based on valid arbitration agreements unless the party objecting to enforcement provides evidence, according to Article V(1)(a) NYC, that the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law applicable thereto. In this case, the Claimants’ challenge should be rejected given that it was based on Egyptian law and the Claimants did not provide any such evidence under Swedish law. The Court also considered that Article II(1) NYC, together with Article I(2) NYC, indicates that international arbitration agreements are valid even if the Parties do not appoint the arbitrators as long as the arbitration agreement explicitly or implicitly indicates that the Parties intended that the arbitrators be appointed in accordance with the rules of a permanent arbitral body. According to the Court, the Parties’ agreement that arbitration be held in Sweden and the nature of the lease contract necessarily indicated that the arbitration would be administered by the commercial arbitration center in Sweden. The Court also considered that the Claimants provided no proper evidence that the notices provided to them, with respect to the appointment of arbitrators and of the arbitration proceedings, were not valid under Swedish law. It further considered that, in accordance with Articles I and II NYC, each State party to the NYC recognizes the res judicata effect (“autorité de la chose jugée”) of foreign arbitral awards unless one of the grounds for non-enforcement contained in Article V NYC is established and that arbitral awards have a res judicata effect starting from the date of their issuance and maintain this res judicata effect as long as they exist. Therefore, the local judge may not, when ordering enforcement of arbitral awards, verify whether they are fair or correct on the merits. Accordingly, the Claimants’ challenge of the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the basis that it did not verify whether the equipment was owned by a third party does not fall under any of the grounds for non-enforcement under the NYC. The Court finally noted that, given that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the NYC is applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State, even when it contradicts the Code of Procedure. Accordingly, it rejected the Claimants’ challenge on the basis that the Court of Appeal did not verify whether Egyptian Courts have jurisdiction over the dispute, reasoning this is not required by the NYC. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=386&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 23 December 1991 Parties Misr Insurance Company v. Alexandria Shipping Agencies Company Case number 547/51 Applicable NYC Provisions V | II | V(1)(a) Languages English Summary Nasr Company for Import and Export (“Nasr”) shipped a message on board a ship owned by the Alexandria Shipping Agencies Company (“Alexandria Shipping”). Upon delivery at the port of Alexandria, damage to the message was noticed. Following the transfer of Nasr’s rights vis-à-vis Alexandria Shipping to Misr Insurance Company (“Misr Insurance”), the latter filed a lawsuit claiming compensation of the damage suffered. On 30 June 1979, the Alexandria Court of First Instance dismissed Misr Insurance’s claim given the existence of an arbitration agreement in the bill of lading, requiring resolution of disputes by arbitration in Gothenburg, Sweden. On 27 December 1980, the Alexandria Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. On 22 February 1981, Misr Insurance challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and argued that Egyptian Courts had jurisdiction over the dispute because the arbitration agreement contained in the bill of lading did not determine the names of the arbitrators, thereby breaching Article 502(3) of the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”). The Court of Cassation rejected Misr Insurance’s challenge. It noted that foreign arbitration agreements are recognized in Egypt following the accession to the NYC and its application by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 171/1959. The Court added that Articles II and V(2) NYC require the Courts of the contracting States to refer matters governed by an arbitration agreement to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, incapable of being performed or its subject-matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration or affects public policy. The validity and effects of arbitration agreements are to be determined in accordance with the law of the seat of arbitration, which is Swedish law in the present case, so long as the subject-matter of the arbitration does not contravene public policy and is capable of settlement by arbitration in Egypt pursuant to Articles II, V(1)(a) and V(2) NYC. The Court concluded that Misr Insurance had provided no evidence establishing that the arbitration agreement was null and void under Swedish law. It added that contravention of public policy in Egypt requires a contravention of the social, political, economic or moral foundations of the State, and that a contradiction with a legal text is not sufficient. The Court held that Article 502(3) of the Code of Procedure, which requires an arbitration agreement to determine the identity of the arbitrators, is a rule that is unrelated to public policy. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=384&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 16 July 1990 Parties Egyptian Saudi Hotels Company v. Kurt & Daves Corporation Case number 2994/57 Applicable NYC Provisions V | II | I | V(1)(b) Languages English Summary On 14 September 1978, Egyptian Saudi Hotels Company (“Egyptian Saudi Hotels”) and Kurt & Daves Corporation (“Kurt & Daves”) concluded a contract by which Kurt & Daves undertook to provide architectural design and engineering services for the construction of a hotel. Article 9 of said contract provided that it was governed by English law and that all matters, claims and disputes arising from the contract which could not be amicably settled should be subject to arbitration in London in accordance with the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”). Claiming that Egyptian Saudi Hotels breached the contract, Kurt & Daves initiated arbitration proceedings. On 28 October 1983, an award was rendered in Kurt & Daves’ favor. On 26 February 1987, the Court of First Instance issued a judgment granting enforcement to the arbitral award, which was confirmed on 26 November 1987 by the Cairo Court of Appeal. Egyptian Saudi Hotels challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied the law since Egyptian Saudi Hotels was not a Party to the contract, and that it did not verify whether Egyptian Saudi Hotels was correctly given notice of the arbitration proceedings and whether Egyptian Courts had jurisdiction over the dispute, as is required by the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”). The Court of Cassation rejected the challenge made by Egyptian Saudi Hotels and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal granting enforcement to the award. The Court considered that, in accordance with Articles I and II NYC, each State party to the NYC recognizes the res judicata effect (“autorité de la chose jugée”) of foreign arbitral awards unless one of the grounds for non-enforcement contained in Article V NYC is established and that arbitral awards have a res judicata effect (“autorité de la chose jugée”) starting from the date of their issuance and maintain this res judicata effect as long as they exist. Therefore, the judge may not, when ordering enforcement of arbitral awards, verify whether they are fair or correct on the merits. Accordingly, Egyptian Saudi Hotels’ challenge to the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the basis that it was not a party to the contract does not fall under any of the grounds for non-enforcement of arbitral awards. The Court further noted that, given that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the NYC is applicable like any other law of the Egyptian State, even when it contradicts the Code of Procedure. Egyptian Saudi Hotels’ challenge on the basis that the Court of Appeal did not verify whether Egyptian Courts have jurisdiction over the dispute must be rejected, since this is not required by the NYC. According to Article 22 of the Civil Code, the rules of procedure are governed by the law of the forum and the ground contained in Article V(1)(b) NYC for non-enforcement of awards is a rule of procedure which is subject to the law of the judge. The Court rejected Egyptian Saudi Hotels’ challenge given that, according to the arbitral award, the sole arbitrator was assured that notice was sent to Egyptian Saudi Hotels and that the latter did not provide evidence establishing that it was not given notice in accordance with the law of the judge. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=385&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 21 May 1990 Parties Harbottle Company Limited v. Egypt for Foreign Trade Company Case number 815/52 Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(1)(c) | V(2)(b) Languages English Summary On 15 November 1975, Harbottle Company Limited (“Harbottle”) and Egypt for Foreign Trade Company (“Egypt Foreign Trade”) entered into a contract by which Harbottle undertook to supply a quantity of coal to Egypt Foreign Trade. The contract provided for the settlement of disputes through arbitration in London in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA Arbitration Rules”). Harbottle initiated arbitration proceedings, claiming that Egypt Foreign Trade had breached its obligations under the contract. On 29 November 1978, the sole arbitrator issued an award ordering Egypt Foreign Trade to pay damages to Harbottle, along with 8% interest and arbitration costs. On 19 May 1980, Harbottle sought enforcement of the award before the South Cairo Court of First Instance, which rejected Harbottle’s request for enforcement. On 21 January 1982, the Cairo Court of Appeal overruled the judgment of the South Cairo Court of First Instance and granted enforcement to the award only to the extent of ordering Egypt Foreign Trade to pay damages. It also ordered Harbottle to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance for failing to submit the original award in those proceedings. On 2 March 1982, Harbottle challenged the judgment of the Cairo Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged, inter alia, that the Cairo Court of Appeal had incorrectly applied the law by not enforcing the part of the award ordering Egypt Foreign Trade to pay interest and arbitration costs. Harbottle also claimed that it should not bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance as it had produced a copy of the award which was equivalent to the original. The Court of Cassation partially overruled the judgment of the Cairo Court of Appeal and granted enforcement to the award, ordering Egypt Foreign Trade to pay damages, arbitration costs and interest, after reducing the interest rate to 5%. The Court noted that according to Articles V(1)(c) and V(2)(b) NYC, Egyptian Courts should reject the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards where they contravene public policy in Egypt and not where they only contravene mandatory legal rules. It held that where only part of an arbitral award contravenes public policy, Egyptian Courts should enforce those parts of the award which are not in contravention with public policy. It also stated that Egyptian Courts should refrain from reviewing the merits of the award. The Court found that the Egyptian legal rule allowing a maximum interest rate of 5% in commercial matters constituted a rule of public policy and granted enforcement to the order for payment of interest after limiting the interest rate to the 5% maximum. The Court granted enforcement to the order requiring payment of arbitration costs on grounds unrelated to the NYC. Finally, the Court of Cassation rejected Harbottle’s challenge to the decision of the Cairo Court of Appeal ordering Harbottle to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. It observed that in accordance with Articles 299 and 301 of the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and Article IV NYC, the party applying for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award had to provide the Court with the original award and arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof, along with certified Arabic translations of these documents where the original documents are in a foreign language. The Court concluded that, as Harbottle had failed to provide the Court of First Instance with the required documents, the Cairo Court of Appeal had rightly ordered it to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=967&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
