Available documents (242)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
United Kingdom / 24 July 2014 / England and Wales, High Court / Travis Coal Restructured Holdings LLC v. Essar Global Fund Limited / 2014 Folio 326
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 24 July 2014 Parties Travis Coal Restructured Holdings LLC v. Essar Global Fund Limited Case number 2014 Folio 326 Applicable NYC Provisions VI Source [2014] EWHC 2510 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3551&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 15 July 2014 Parties Konkola Copper Mines v. U&M Mining Zambia Ltd Case number 2014 Folio 105 Source [2014] EWHC 2374 (Comm) | online: BAILII
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4613&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 03 July 2014 Parties Yukos Capital S.à r.L v. OJSC Oil Company Rosneft Case number 2010 Folio: 315 & 316 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source [2014] EWHC 2188 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3552&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 02 July 2014 Parties Konkola Copper Mines PLC v. U&M Mining Zambia LTD Case number 2014 Folio 105 Applicable NYC Provisions V | VI Source [2014] EWHC 2146 (Comm) | online: BAILII
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3553&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
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, Court of Appeal of the British Virgin Islands Date 13 May 2014 Parties Cukurova Holding A.S. v. Sonera Holding B.V. Case number 0096 of 2013 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source [2014] UKPC 15 | online: BAILII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4612&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, Court of Appeal Date 27 March 2014 Parties Anthony Lombard-Knight, Jakob Kinde v. Rainstorm Pictures Inc Case number A3/2013/0447 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | VI Source [2014] EWCA Civ 356 | online: BAILII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3555&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, Court of Appeal Date 02 July 2013 Parties Joint Stock Company 'Aeroflot-Russian Airlines' v. Berezovsky & Ors Case number A3/2012/1708 & 1720 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source [2013] EWCA Civ 784 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1670&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Supreme Court of United Kingdom Date 12 June 2013 Parties Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v. AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LL Case number A3/2010/1268 & A3/2010/1443 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source [2013] UKSC 35 | online: BAILII
Languages English affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1671&opac_view=6 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
Craig Tevendale ; Andrew Cannon / Chapter 26: Enforcement of Awards / Arbitration England: with chapters on Scotland and Ireland, J. D. M. Lew, H. Bor, G. Fullelove, J. Greenaway eds., Kluwer Law International, 563 (2013) - 2013
Author(s) Craig Tevendale ; Andrew Cannon Source Arbitration England: with chapters on Scotland and Ireland, J. D. M. Lew, H. Bor, G. Fullelove, J. Greenaway eds., Kluwer Law International, 563 (2013) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions United Kingdom Worldcat Number Worldcat : 857408278 
ISBN 978-90-411-3998-6 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3210&opac_view=6
Author(s) Katherine Belton Source 24(1) The American Review of International Arbitration 161 (2013) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions United Kingdom | France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 851633617 ISBN 978-0-379-21423-9 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3209&opac_view=6
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, Court of Appeal Date 27 June 2012 Parties Yukos Capital S.à r.L. v. OJSC Rosneft Oil Company Case number A3/2011/1790 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source [2012] EWCA Civ 855 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary The claimant, Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. (“Yukos Capital”) was a Luxembourgian company which had once been a member of the Yukos Group (“Yukos”) in Russia. The defendant, OJSC Rosneft Oil Co. (“Rosneft”), was a Russian State-owned company which had acquired the majority of Yukos’ assets. The acquired assets included a former production subsidiary of Yukos, Yuganskneftegaz (“YNG”). Disputes had arisen in respect of certain loan agreements between Yukos Capital and YNG. The disputes were submitted to arbitration pursuant to the Rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce of Trade and Industry in Russia. The arbitral tribunal issued four awards in favour of Yukos Capital. By the time the awards were issued, YNG had been acquired by Rosneft. Rosneft then applied to the Russian courts to have the awards set aside. The Russian courts granted the application. Meanwhile, Yukos applied to the Dutch courts for enforcement of the awards. The Dutch courts ultimately granted enforcement, refusing to recognise the Russian courts’ setting aside of the awards on the basis that it was the product of a judicial process that was partial and dependent. Yukos also applied to the English High Court to enforce the awards 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). Rosneft objected to enforcement on three broad grounds. First, it maintained that the awards had been set aside by the Russian courts, relying on 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). Second, it argued that the allegations by Yukos Capital regarding the conduct of the Russian court proceedings raised a challenge to the validity of executive and administrative acts of a foreign sovereign upon which the English courts could not adjudicate under the act of state doctrine and the doctrine of non-justiciability. Third, it asserted that the awards should not be enforced because they gave effect to an unlawful tax evasion scheme. Yukos Capital replied first, that the Russian courts’ setting aside of the awards was partial and dependent, as the Dutch courts correctly found in their decision granting enforcement, and that this decision bound and estopped Rosneft under the doctrine of issue estoppel; second, that the doctrine of act of state did not apply because there was no challenge to the validity of any act of state and the doctrine of non-justiciability did not apply because the allegations were concerned with judicial standards, which were justiciable; and third, that the allegation of unlawful tax evasion was part of a campaign to strip the Yukos Group of its assets. The High Court was asked to rule on two preliminary issues, namely: (i) whether Rosneft was issue estopped by the decision of the Dutch courts from denying that the Russian courts’ setting aside of the awards was the result of a partial and dependent judicial process and (ii) whether Rosneft was entitled to rely on the act of state and non-justiciability doctrines. The High Court ruled in favour of Yukos Capital on both of the preliminary issues. Rosneft appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal on the question of estoppel, but dismissed the appeal with respect to the question of the act of state and non-justiciability doctrines. In respect of the first question, the Court noted that the Dutch courts had treated the issue of recognition of the Russian courts’ setting aside of the awards as one of public order. In the Court’s view, the notion of “public order” was inevitably different in each country. In particular, it noted that the standards by which the courts of any particular country resolved the question whether the courts of another country were “partial and dependent” might vary considerably. It concluded that in an English court this question fell to be determined as a matter of English law. In respect of the second question, the Court reasoned that the act of state doctrine did not prevent an English court subject to the requirements of an international convention such as the NYC from examining whether a foreign court decision should be recognised or enforced. In its view, while the principle of international comity required cogent grounds for non-recognition or non-enforcement, that was a matter of evidence and argument, rather than one of state immunity or non-justiciability. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1182&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, Court of Appeal Date 16 May 2012 Parties Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engenharia SA Case number A3/2012/0249 Source [2012] EWCA Civ 638 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary The parties entered into two risk insurance policies relating to construction of a hydroelectric generating plant in Brazil. These policies, which were expressly governed by Brazilian law, contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Brazilian courts, as well as an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in London. There was no express choice of law clause in the arbitration agreement. A dispute arose. The insured invoked the exclusive jurisdiction clause by commencing litigation in Brazil, while the insurers invoked the arbitration clause by initiating arbitration in London. The Brazilian courts made an order enjoining the insurers from pursuing the arbitration in London on the ground that, under Brazilian law, the conditions for invoking the arbitration clause had not been met. Meanwhile, the insurers obtained an order from the English courts enjoining the insured from pursuing the litigation in Brazil on the ground that, under English law, which was held to be the law governing the arbitration agreement, the arbitration clause had been validly invoked. The insured appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the anti-suit injunction. It held that the arbitration agreement was governed by the law of the seat of the arbitration, being English law. In so ruling, it referred to the scholarly view that if the arbitration is to be held in the territory of a State party to the NYC, then section 103(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(1)(a) NYC's provision regarding invalidity of the arbitration agreement) appears to give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the law governing the validity of the arbitration agreement is the law of the seat, which is also where the award is to be treated as "made" for the purposes of the NYC. The Court agreed that, under English law, the insurers had validly invoked the arbitration clause. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=886&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
