Available documents (242)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
United Kingdom / 16 July 2007 / England and Wales, High Court / Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. ST-CMS Electric Co. Private Ltd
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, 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, Court of Appeal Date 24 January 2007 Parties Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov Case number 2006 2353 A3 QBCMF Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source [2007] EWCA Civ 20 | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1455&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, Court of Appeal Date 13 November 2006 Parties Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v. Government of Lithuania and AB Geonafta Case number B6/2005/2737 Source [2006] EWCA Civ 1529, [2007] QB 886 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary Svenska, a Swedish company, entered into a joint venture agreement relating to oil reserve exploitation with a Lithuanian State-owned entity. The agreement was governed by Lithuanian law and provided for arbitration in Denmark under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. It also contained an express irrevocable waiver of all sovereign immunity rights by the Lithuanian government and the State-owned entity. While the Lithuanian government was not a party to the agreement, it had manifested its intention in writing to be bound as if it were a signatory. The State-owned entity was later privatized. A dispute arose, which Svenska referred to arbitration against both the newly privatized entity and the Lithuanian government. The tribunal’s interim award held that the Lithuanian government was bound by the arbitration agreement and that the tribunal had jurisdiction. The final award was issued in favour of Svenska. Svenska obtained an order granting leave to enforce the final award in the United Kingdom under section 101 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (providing for the enforcement of NYC awards as judgments). The High Court refused an application to have the order set aside made by the Lithuanian government on the basis of sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeal held that the Lithuanian government was bound by the arbitration agreement. The Court arrived at this conclusion by analyzing the parties' common intentions, which it considered the correct approach under the applicable Lithuanian law. The Court further held that, under section 9 of the State Immunity Act 1978 (U.K.), a State is not immune in U.K. court proceedings relating to arbitration when it has agreed to arbitrate in writing. Section 9's scope included proceedings to enforce a NYC award. In so ruling, the Court noted an argument by counsel that Parliament was unlikely to have intended otherwise, in light of the passing of the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) a few years prior, giving effect to the NYC. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Lithuanian government was not immune from the enforcement proceedings. affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=889&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
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 08 March 2006 Parties Amir Weissfisch v. Anthony Julius, Rami Weisfisch and Philip Davis Case number A3/2006/0197 PTA & A Source [2006] EWCA Civ 218 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary Two brothers involved in disputes over matters relating to a family trust agreed with the trustee to resolve remaining disputes by ad hoc arbitration in Switzerland. The agreement, which was governed by Swiss law, named as arbitrator a solicitor who had acted for the brothers in personal and business matters, and who had earlier attempted to mediate the disputes. The agreement expressly waived the parties' rights to challenge the arbitrator's appointment or arbitral awards. The arbitration proceeded, but further disputes arose. One brother brought various claims against the other brother, the arbitrator and the trustee. The defendants instituted proceedings to stay the litigation pending arbitration in accordance with the Swiss arbitration agreement. The claimant brother sought an interim injunction restraining the arbitrator from continuing in that role pending determination of the stay proceedings. The lower court refused to grant the interim injunction, noting that it would go against the spirit of the NYC and the structure of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the Act"). On appeal, the claimant brother argued that the English litigation involved claims against the arbitrator that were outside the scope of the arbitral agreement, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and that it would be inappropriate for the arbitrator to rule on his own jurisdiction in the face of such claims. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused to grant the injunction. The Court held that the arbitrator could rule on his own jurisdiction under the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle, especially given the Swiss courts' supervisory jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that issues of validity of the arbitration agreement should be resolved in Switzerland under Swiss law. The Court stated that this conclusion was consistent with principles of the NYC as recognized by the Act, and that an injunction by an English court would be counter to those principles. The Court acknowledged that exceptional circumstances might warrant an opposite conclusion; while no such circumstances justified an interim injunction at this stage, they could be raised in the stay proceedings. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=850&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 21 February 2006 Parties Kanoria v. Guinness Case number A3/2005/2673 Source [2006] EWCA Civ 222 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary An individual (Kanoria) and an Indian company entered into agreements with another individual (Guinness) and a U.K. company of which Guinness was the majority shareholder. The agreements related to the recruitment of Indian software personnel for U.K. clients and the creation of a new Indian joint venture company for that purpose. The parties agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration in India applying Indian law. A dispute arose and Kanoria and the two Indian companies initiated arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement against Guinness and the U.K. company. The claimants alleged fraud against Guinness and argued that Guinness was personally liable for payments owed by the U.K. company. Guinness advised that he was unable to appear at the arbitration due to illness. The arbitration proceeded in his absence and resulted in an award being made in the claimants' favour. The claimants obtained an order granting leave to enforce the award in the United Kingdom under section 101 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the Act"). Guinness applied to have the order set aside on various grounds. In the event, the judge granted the application to set aside the order under section 103(2)(c) of the Act (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(1)(b) NYC). The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to refuse enforcement of the award under section 103(2)(c) of the Act, on the ground that Guinness had been unable to present his case. The Court would also have declined to enforce the award under the limited discretion stemming from the word "may" in sections 103(2) and 103(3) of the Act. It was noted that these provisions concern the integrity of the arbitral proceeding, which had been compromised in this case. The fact that Guinness had not challenged the award in India due to a time-bar was not found to be persuasive. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=465&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Steven Gee / The Autonomy of Arbitrators, and Fraud Unravels All / 22(3) Arbitration International 337 (2006) - 2006
Author(s) Steven Gee Source 22(3) Arbitration International 337 (2006) 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 : 774633377 
ISBN 978-0-379-21423-9 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3207&opac_view=6
Author(s) May Lu Source 23 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 747 (2005-2006) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions United Kingdom | United States Worldcat Number Worldcat : 144647863 ISBN 978-0-379-21423-9 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3208&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
External ResourceExternal Resource
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 10 November 2005 Parties AMB Generali Holding AG and others v. SEB Trygg Liv Holding Aktiebolag Case number A3/2005/0287, 0284, 0331, 0285 & 0259 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source [2005] EWCA Civ 1237 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6043&opac_view=6 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, Court of Appeal Date 09 September 2005 Parties Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador Case number A3/2005/1121 Source [2005] EWCA Civ 1116 | online: BAILII
Languages English affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1458&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, Court of Appeal Date 13 June 2005 Parties O.T. Africa Line Ltd v. Magic Sportswear Corporation and others Case number A3/2004/2553 Source [2005] EWCA Civ 710 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6042&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, Court of Appeal Date 07 December 2004 Parties Collins (Contractors) Limited v. Baltic Quay Management (1994) Limited Case number B2/2004/0997 Source [2004] EWCA Civ 1757 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6039&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 02 December 2004 Parties Ernst Kastner v. Marc Jason, Davis Sherman and Brigitte Sherman Case number A3/2004/0746 Source [2004] EWCA Civ 1599 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5354&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 02 December 2004 Parties Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v. New India Assurance Association Co. Ltd (The “Hari Bhum”) Case number A3/2004/0153 Source [2004] EWCA Civ 1598 | online: BAILII
Languages English affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1198&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
