England and Wales, House of Lords
Available documents (5)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
United Kingdom / 21 February 2007 / England and Wales, House of Lords / West Tankers Inc v. RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA and Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, House of Lords Date 21 February 2007 Parties West Tankers Inc v. RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA and Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA Source [2007] UKHL 4 | online: BAILII
Languages English affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1454&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, House of Lords Date 30 June 2005 Parties Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) Source [2005] UKHL 43; [2006] 1 AC 221 | online: UK Parliament
Languages English Summary The Lesotho Highlands Development Authority ("the Authority") contracted with a consortium of companies from various countries to construct a dam in Lesotho. The contract, which was governed by Lesotho law, provided for arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, but did not specify a currency in which an award should be rendered. A payment-related dispute arose and was referred to arbitration in London. The tribunal's partial award, in favour of the consortium, was expressed in European currencies. The tribunal also awarded pre-award interest. The tribunal stated that both its currency choice and award of pre-award interest were permitted by specific provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the Act"). The Authority challenged the award in England. The High Court upheld the challenge under section 68(2)(b) of the Act, which provides a ground to challenge an award on the basis of serious irregularity when the tribunal has exceeded its powers other than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction. The Court held that the tribunal had exceeded its powers on both the currency choice and pre-award interest issues. Its judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, finding that the tribunal had not exceeded its powers under section 68(2)(b) of the Act on either the currency choice or pre-award interest issues. It was noted that section 68(2)(b) of the Act was likely inspired by Article V(1)(c) NYC and that, since Article V(1)(c) should be narrowly interpreted so as not to re-examine the merits of an award, a similar approach should be taken under section 68(2)(b). Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=887&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, House of Lords Date 21 January 1993 Parties Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd Source [1993] AC 334; [1993] 2 WLR 262 (HL) | online: ICLR
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1472&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, House of Lords Date 24 July 1991 Parties Hiscox v. Outhwaite Applicable NYC Provisions VI Source [1992] 1 A.C. 562 | online: ICLR
Languages English Summary The parties referred a dispute concerning liabilities under a reinsurance contract to arbitration by a sole arbitrator in London. Both the arbitration agreement and the reinsurance contract were governed by English law. On 20 November 1990, the arbitrator made an interim award. The award was signed in Paris, but the parties were notified that it was ready for collection from a London address. Mr. Hiscox brought a series of applications in respect of the award under each of the Arbitration Act 1950 (U.K.) (“the 1950 Act”) and Arbitration Act 1979 (U.K.) (“the 1979 Act”). Mr. Outhwaite contended (i) that the award had been “made” in Paris, so as to be a “Convention award” for the purposes of the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) (“the 1975 Act”), being defined thereunder 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]”, and (ii) that section 3(2) of the 1975 Act defeated the supervisory jurisdiction of the English court with respect to the applications made under the 1950 and 1979 Acts. Section 3(2) of the 1975 Act stated that: “Any Convention award which would be enforceable under this Act shall be treated as binding for all purposes on the persons as between whom it was made, and may accordingly be relied on by any of those persons by way of defence, set-off or otherwise in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom; and any reference in this Act to enforcing a Convention award shall be construed as including references to relying on such an award”. The judge ruled that the award was “made” at the seat of arbitration, which was London, and that it was therefore not a “Convention award” to which the provisions of the 1975 Act applied. The Court of Appeal reversed this ruling, but dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr. Outhwaite was estopped from denying the supervisory jurisdiction of the English courts to entertain the proceedings under the 1950 and 1979 Acts. Mr. Outhwaite appealed. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. In so ruling, it agreed with the Court of Appeal that an award is “made” when and where it is perfected and that an award is perfected when it is signed. It also concluded, however, that the English courts remained capable of exercising their supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration and of adjourning, if necessary, any decision on the enforceability of the award until the proceedings under the 1950 and 1979 Acts had been determined. The appeal was dismissed on this ground. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=891&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, House of Lords Date 01 March 1984 Parties Minister of Public Works of the Government of the State of Kuwait v. Sir Frederick Snow & Partners Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(2) Source [1984] A.C. 426 | online: ICLR
Languages English Summary In 1979, the claimant State commenced proceedings in England under the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) (“the Act”) to enforce an award made in 1973 by a Kuwaiti arbitrator concerning disputes arising out of a contract for the construction of an international airport in Kuwait. In 1973, when the award was made, the claimant State was not a party to the NYC, but by 1979, when the enforcement proceedings were commenced, it had become a party. The defendants resisted enforcement on the basis that a foreign award could only qualify as a “Convention award” for the purposes of the Act (being defined 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]”) if the State in which it was made was already a party to the NYC at the date of the award. The claimant State argued that a foreign award could qualify as a “Convention award” if the State in which it was made had become a party to the NYC by the date on which the enforcement proceedings were commenced. At first instance, it was held that the award was not a “Convention award” for the purposes of the Act and could not be enforced under it. The claimant State appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The defendants appealed. The House of Lords dismissed the defendants’ appeal, their Lordships preferring the meaning of the expression “Convention award” in the Act contended for by the claimant State. In so ruling, their Lordships noted that in case they were wrong in their view that the meaning of the expression “Convention award” was unambiguous, it was permissible to refer to the text of the NYC in order to obtain assistance in resolving any ambiguity. Such assistance was to be found in Article VII (2) NYC, the effect of which is that, upon two or more States which were parties to the 1923 Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses and the 1927 Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards becoming parties to the NYC, the two earlier treaties shall no longer apply as between such States. If the expression “Convention award” was construed in the way contended for by the defendants, the result of Article VII (2) NYC would be to produce a lacuna in the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of awards as between many States. They gave the following illustration. First, suppose that before 1975, states A and B were both parties to the Geneva Treaty of 1927. In that case, awards made in state A could be enforced pursuant to that treaty in state B, and vice versa. Next, suppose that in 1975 both states A and B became parties to the NYC. Then, on the defendants' construction of the expression “Convention award”, an award made in state A in, say, 1970, could not be enforced as a Convention award in state B because, at the time when such award was made, state A was not yet a party to the NYC. At the same time, by reason of Article VII(2) NYC, the award made in state A could not be enforced in state B under the Geneva Treaty of 1927, because that treaty would, upon states A and B becoming parties to the NYC in 1975, have ceased to have effect as between them. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=890&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
