Available documents (242)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
United Kingdom / 20 January 1997 / England and Wales, High Court / China Agribusiness Development Corporation v. Balli Trading
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 20 January 1997 Parties China Agribusiness Development Corporation v. Balli Trading Source [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 76
Languages English Summary The parties entered into a contract for the sale of steel coils. The contract contained an arbitration agreement referring disputes to the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade ("FETAC"), under FETAC's provisional rules. A dispute arose, by which time FETAC had been renamed the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC"). CIETAC's award, which was mainly in favour of the buyer, was made under the CIETAC rules in force at the time of arbitration, rather than the FETAC provisional rules stipulated in the contract. When the buyer attempted to enforce the award in the United Kingdom, the seller resisted on the ground that the award violated section 5(2)(e) of the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(1)(d) NYC) because the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties' agreement. In particular, the fee arrangements were different under the two sets of rules. The High Court refused to set aside leave to enforce the award. It held that the parties had agreed to the rules of FETAC or a successor institution that were in effect when the arbitration began. Were it otherwise, the court would exercise its discretion derived from the word "may" in section 5(2) of the Act to enforce the award. In this case, the difference in fee arrangements between the two sets of rules did not sufficiently prejudice the losing party to justify non-enforcement. The Court also noted that this argument had been raised very late in the proceedings. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=527&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 17 May 1994 Parties Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v. Pagnan SpA (The "Angelic Grace") Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(3) Source [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 87
Languages English Summary The vessel "Angelic Grace" was chartered by Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA ("Aggeliki"), a Panamanian company, to Pagnan SpA ("Pagnan"), an Italian company, under a charter party. The charter party provided for arbitration in London. Following a collision with another ship owned by Pagnan, Aggeliki initiated arbitration in London. Pagnan commenced litigation in Italy. The English High Court granted an anti-suit injunction restraining Pagnan from pursuing its claim in the Italian courts. In the Court of Appeal, Pagnan argued for the reversal of the anti-suit injunction on the ground, inter alia, that the Italian court had not yet determined whether it had jurisdiction, and the English court should exercise restraint, as the Italian court was, in any case, bound to refer the parties to arbitration under Articles II(1) and II(3) NYC. The Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of the anti-suit injunction. It noted that Article II(3) NYC did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Italian court. It also stated that a court of another State party to the NYC would not be offended by an anti-suit injunction restraining a party that had previously contracted not to invoke that court's jurisdiction. In so ruling, the Court laid out general standards relevant to the granting of anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration agreements and exclusive jurisdiction agreements. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=877&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 12 March 1993 Parties Soleh Boneh International Ltd v. Government of the Republic of Uganda and National Housing Corporation Applicable NYC Provisions VI Source [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 208
Languages English Summary A consortium of Israeli companies contracted to carry out building works in Uganda for the National Housing Corporation, an entity associated with the Ugandan government. The contract was guaranteed by the Ugandan government. A dispute arose, which the contractors referred to arbitration in Sweden. A sole arbitrator appointed by the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce made both an interim award and a final award in favour of the contractors. The defendants initiated court proceedings in Sweden challenging the validity of the awards on the grounds of invalid arbitrator appointment and sovereign immunity. Meanwhile, the contractors sought leave to enforce the awards in the United Kingdom. The High Court adjourned the enforcement proceedings pending determination of the Swedish proceedings and ordered the defendants to provide security under section 5(5) of the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article VI NYC). The amount of security ordered equalled the amount of the award plus interest. The defendants appealed this order. The Court of Appeal upheld the order for security, but decreased the amount of security ordered. The Court held that two factors were relevant to an inquiry into whether to order security. The first factor was the strength of the arguments as to the award's invalidity. If the award is manifestly invalid, a court should not order security. If the award is manifestly valid, the court should order either immediate enforcement or substantial security. There would be a range of possibilities in between. The second factor was the difficulty or ease of enforcement. The case for security would be stronger if enforcement would be more difficult if delayed, and weaker if there would be insufficient assets in any event. In this case, the Court found it seriously arguable that the award was invalid on the ground of invalid arbitrator appointment. Finally, the Court held that the State Immunity Act 1976 (U.K.) was no bar to security being ordered in this case. see also :
- VI / C. The decision to order suitable security / §47
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / b. Factors considered by courts in deciding whether to order 'suitable security' / §58
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / c. Form and amount of the security / §67
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / c. Whether there are any prevailing factors to be considered by courts / §38
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=529&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe 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
Marc Lalonde / The Post-arbitral Phase in North America and Western Europe / International Arbitration a Changing World, ICCA Congress Series No. 6, Bahrain, A.J. van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International 127 (1994) - 1993
Author(s) Marc Lalonde Source International Arbitration a Changing World, ICCA Congress Series No. 6, Bahrain, A.J. van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International 127 (1994) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions Germany | United Kingdom | United States Worldcat Number Worldcat : 29843501 
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3016&opac_view=6
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 22 January 1992 Parties Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd Source [1992] 2 WLR 741; [1992] 1 QB 656 (CA) | online: ICLR
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1473&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, Court of Appeal Date 25 March 1991 Parties Hiscox v. Outhwaite Source [1991] 2 W.L.R. 1321; [1991] 3 All E.R. 124 | 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. Mr. Outhwaite appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. It held unanimously that the award, having been signed in Paris, had been “made” in that city. In so ruling, the Court had regard to the NYC travaux préparatoires. However, the majority concluded that Mr. Outhwaite, by his prior conduct, was estopped from objecting to the exercise by the English courts of their supervisory jurisdiction over the proceedings under the 1950 and 1979 Acts, and the appeal was dismissed on this basis. In the course of his reasoning, Lord Donaldson of Lymington M.R. observed that section 5(5) of the 1975 Act and Article VI NYC dealt with the situation where enforcement is sought in one Convention country and an application is made to a “competent authority” in another Convention country to set aside or suspend the award, by empowering the enforcing court to adjourn its decision on the enforcement of the award. So, too, in this case, where the competent authority was also the enforcing court, any decision on the enforceability of the award could be adjourned until the proceedings under the 1950 and 1979 Acts had been determined. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=892&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 24 March 1987 Parties Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohr-Gesellschaft M.B.H. v. Ras Al Khaimah National Oil Co. Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(c) Source [1987] 3 WLR 1023 | online: ICLR
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1474&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 26 July 1985 Parties Dallal v. Bank Mellat Source [1986] Q.B. 441; [1986] 2 W.L.R. 745 | online: ICLR
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1183&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 06 April 1984 Parties The "Tuyuti" Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source [1984] QB 838, [1984] 3 WLR 745 | online: ICLR
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1482&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
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Court of Appeal Date 28 June 1983 Parties Bank Mellat v. Helliniki Tachniki S.A. Source [1983] 3 WLR 783; [1984] 1 QB 291 (CA) | online: ICLR
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1485&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Julian Lew Source 10(3) International Lawyer 425 (1976) 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 : 1589271 ISBN 978-981-05-7046-0 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3204&opac_view=6
E/CONF.26/L.49 - Report of Working Party No. 1 on Reservations- 04/06/1958
Comments Report of Working Party n°1 on reservations during its meeting held on 4 June 1958 Date 04/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.6. Reports of Working Party I: 2-4 June 1958 Country Poland | United Kingdom | Ceylon | Norway | Italy Applicable NYC Provisions I Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3370&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Report of Working Party n°1 established at the United Nations Conference on Internal Commercial Arbitration (its 7th meeting held on 23 May 1958) Date 02/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.6. Reports of Working Party I: 2-4 June 1958 Country Colombia | France | India | Israel | Italy | Turkey | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I | III Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3368&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 29/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.3. Comparison of Drafts Relating to Articles III, IV and V of the Draft Convention - 29 May 1958 Country Netherlands | Sweden | Israel | Pakistan | France | Japan | Yugoslavia | Poland | United Kingdom | Switzerland | Italy Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3359&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 28/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.3. Comparison of Drafts Relating to Articles III, IV and V of the Draft Convention - 29 May 1958 Country Netherlands | Sweden | France | Pakistan | Israel | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | V(1)(c) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3358&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 28/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I Language(s) English | Russian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3352&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 27/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country Israel | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions III Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3341&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 27/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions II Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3342&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 27/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions V Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3343&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 27/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(e) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3344&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 26/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country Belgium | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3327&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 23/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions III Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3328&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Amendment to Article 1 and Article 2 Date 22/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3321&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 03/04/1956 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.2. Comments by Governments and Organisations on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: January 1956 - March 1958 Country Netherlands | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2)(b) | IX | XIV Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3301&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 25/03/1956 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.2. Comments by Governments and Organisations on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: January 1956 - March 1958 Country Netherlands | United Kingdom Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3300&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Annex: Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 28/03/1955 Classification (first level) D. Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards Country Australia | Belgium | Ecuador | Egypt | India | Sweden | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions III | VII | VIII Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3423&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Annex: E/AC.42/4 - Draft Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 28/03/1955 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.1. ECOSOC: Report of the Committee on the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: 18 March 1955 Country Australia | Belgium | Ecuador | Egypt | India | Sweden | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3295&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
