Available documents (242)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
United Kingdom / 28 July 2004 / England and Wales, High Court / Tame Shipping Ltd v. Easy Navigation Ltd / 2004 Folio 150
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 28 July 2004 Parties Tame Shipping Ltd v. Easy Navigation Ltd Case number 2004 Folio 150 Source [2004] EWHC 1862 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6457&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 27 May 2004 Parties Atlanska Plovidba v. Consignaciones Asturianas S.A. Case number 2004 Folio 104 (Comm) Source [2004] EWHC 1273 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1459&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
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, Court of Appeal Date 24 November 2003 Parties Good Challenger Navegante S.A. v. Metalexportimport S.A. Case number A3/2003/0242 Source [2003] EWCA Civ 1668 | online: BAILII
Languages English affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6452&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, Court of Appeal Date 03 July 2003 Parties Welex A.G. v. Rosa Maritime Ltd Case number A3/02/2230 A3/02/2231 Source [2003] EWCA Civ 938 | online: BAILII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1460&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, Court of Appeal Date 18 April 2002 Parties Yukos Oil Co v. Dardana Ltd Case number A3/2001/1029 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | VI Source [2002] EWCA Civ 543 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary Dardana Limited ("Dardana") was the assignee of the benefits of an award made by an arbitral tribunal in Sweden against the Yukos Oil Company ("Yukos"). Yukos sought to have the award set aside before the Swedish courts, while Dardana 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") (providing for the enforcement of NYC awards as judgments). Yukos contended that the Act required Dardana to satisfy the English court that there was an arbitration agreement as defined by section 100 of the Act. The judge disagreed. He held that Yukos' right to challenge the existence of any arbitration agreement was only to be found in section 103(2) of the Act (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(1) NYC) and that the onus was on Yukos to prove that there was no such agreement. Rather than decide whether Yukos had done so, the judge adjourned the application under section 103(5) of the Act (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article VI NYC) to await the Swedish decision. The judge also ordered Yukos to provide security of US$2.5 million. Yukos challenged each of those decisions. The Court of Appeal granted Yukos leave to appeal, but refused to stay the order for security. On the ensuing appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the order for security. It held that the judge had erred by treating Yukos as the party seeking an adjournment, when it was not. Any order could not therefore be made a condition of an adjournment. The judge had also erred insofar as he considered that the provision of security could be treated as a condition of avoiding enforcement, since Yukos was entitled to have its application under section 103(2) determined and to have a stay of execution in the meantime. Any order for security could be, at most, a simple order for the provision of security. see also :
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / a. Relationship between adjournment and security / §51
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / c. Whether the party must request an adjournment and/or an order for security / §18
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / A. Prima facie right to recognition and enforcement / §8
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / A. The requirement that the applicant provide the arbitration agreement 'referred to in article II' / §65
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / B. No requirement to prove the validity of the arbitration agreement / §70
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / d. The discretionary power of the courts to adjourn the decision on enforcement or order security / §22
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / a. Relationship between adjournment and security / §48
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / a. Relationship between adjournment and security / §49
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(3) / a.The territorial criterion and the reciprocity reservation / §71
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(1) / a. Awards “made in the territory of a State other than the State where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought” / §45
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=455&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 06 July 2001 Parties Yukos Oil Co v. Dardana Ltd Case number A3/2001/1029 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | VI Source [2001] EWCA Civ 1077 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary Dardana Limited ("Dardana") was the assignee of the benefits of an award made by an arbitral tribunal in Sweden against the Yukos Oil Company ("Yukos"). Yukos sought to have the award set aside before the Swedish courts, while Dardana 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") (providing for the enforcement of NYC awards as judgments). Yukos contended that the Act required Dardana to satisfy the English court that there was an arbitration agreement as defined by section 100 of the Act. The judge disagreed. He held that Yukos' right to challenge the existence of any arbitration agreement was only to be found in section 103(2) of the Act (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(1) NYC) and that the onus was on Yukos to prove that there was no such agreement. Rather than decide whether Yukos had done so, the judge adjourned the application under section 103(5) of the Act (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article VI NYC) to await the Swedish decision. The judge also ordered Yukos to provide security of US$2.5 million. Yukos challenged each of those decisions. The Court of Appeal granted Yukos leave to appeal, but refused to stay the order for security. It held that a court could adjourn its enforcement decision under section 103(5) of the Act sua sponte and order security in its discretion. In this case, moreover, the High Court had correctly considered the two factors relevant to the exercise of its discretion: namely, the strength of the arguments asserting invalidity of the award, and the difficulty or ease of enforcement. Thus, the Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's exercise of its discretion. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=879&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 29 March 2001 Parties Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. v. Mellitus Shipping Inc., Chemikalien Seetransport GmbH, Fortum Oil and Gas, Saudi Arabian Marketing & Refining Company Case number QBCMF 2000/2211/A3 Source [2001] EWCA Civ 418 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6450&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
Marc J. Goldstein / Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards under the United States and English Law / Transatlantic Commercial Litigation and Arbitration, J. Fellas ed., Oceana, 657 (2001) - 2001
Author(s) Marc J. Goldstein Source Transatlantic Commercial Litigation and Arbitration, J. Fellas ed., Oceana, 657 (2001) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions United States | United Kingdom Worldcat Number Worldcat : 803634769 
ISBN 978-0-379-21423-9 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3243&opac_view=6
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, Court of Appeal Date 09 December 1999 Parties Irvani v. Irvani Applicable NYC Provisions V Languages English Summary The parties were brothers and business partners. Their partnership was terminated and disputes arose regarding the distribution of partnership assets. By agreement, these disputes were referred to the parties’ sister as arbitrator, who issued an award in Vancouver, Canada, in favour of the respondent. The respondent sought and obtained a declaration from an English court to the effect that the arbitration agreement and award were binding. The applicant appealed, seeking a declaration that the award was not binding on the grounds, inter alia, that the arbitrator had not given him a proper occasion to state his case and had not acted with impartiality pursuant to section 5(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the Act”) (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V NYC). The respondent argued, inter alia, that the applicant was prevented from resisting enforcement of the award under section 5(2)(c) of the Act, because, insofar as both the curial and enforcing courts were the English Court, the applicant could have applied to set the award aside under section 22 of the Arbitration Act 1950 (U.K.) and had failed to do so in time. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal under section 5(2)(c) of the Act, finding that the terms of the award raised doubts as to the arbitrator’s adherence to natural justice. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1176&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe 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, Court of Appeal Date 12 May 1999 Parties Westacre Investments Inc v. Jugoimport-SDRP Holding Co Ltd Case number QBCMI 1998/0485/3 Source [1999] EWCA Civ 1401; [2000] QB 288 | online: BAILII
Languages English Summary Westacre served as a consultant to a Yugoslavian government agency to procure contracts for the sale of military equipment in Kuwait. The consultancy agreement, which was governed by Swiss law, provided for arbitration in Switzerland under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. A dispute arose and Westacre initiated arbitration. The defendants alleged that the agreement contemplated that the contracts in Kuwait would be obtained through bribes and that it was therefore void on public policy grounds. The tribunal dismissed this argument and made an award in favour of Westacre. Based on the tribunal's factual finding that there was no evidence of bribery or other illegality, the Swiss Federal Tribunal also declined to annul the award on public policy grounds. Westacre thereafter sought to enforce the award in England. The High Court refused to set aside an order granting leave to enforce the award. The High Court also refused the defendants leave to amend their defence to include claims that Westacre's witnesses had given perjured evidence in the arbitration. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for non-enforcement under the public policy ground in section 5(3) of the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates, and whose wording is equivalent to, Article V(2)(b) NYC). The Court reasoned that it was entitled to consider that the tribunal had examined all relevant public policy considerations. It held that English public policy was not violated when a tribunal enforced a contract that did not violate applicable domestic public policy per the contract’s proper law or curial law. This was the case even if the direct application of English public policy might have led to a different conclusion. The Court also approved the High Court's decision to refuse leave to amend the defence, noting the High Court's reference to the potential effects on finality of NYC awards. affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=546&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, Court of Appeal Date 19 December 1997 Parties Halki Shipping Corporation v. Sopex Oils Limited Case number QBCMI 97/1082/B Source [1997] EWCA Civ 3062 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5352&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, Court of Appeal Date 25 November 1997 Parties Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH v. Société Cargill France Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source [1997] EWCA Civ 2811 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1463&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 16 April 1997 Parties Schiffahrtsgesellshaft Detlef Von Appen GmbH v. Wiener Allianz Versichrungs AG & Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH Case number 96/1509/B Source [EWCA] Civ 1420 | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1465&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 22 January 1997 Parties Soinco SACI v. Novokuznetsk Aluminium Plant Case number OBCMI 97/0769/ Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) Source [1998] 2 WLR 334; [1998] QB 406 (CA) | online: ICLR
Languages English Summary Summary in preparation Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1177&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
