Available documents (126)
Canada / 21 February 2017 / Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia / China Citic Bank Corporation Limited v. Shibiao Yan / S165830
Country Canada Court Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia Date 21 February 2017 Parties China Citic Bank Corporation Limited v. Shibiao Yan Case number S165830 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V Source 2017 BCSC 596 | online: CanLII
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4160&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 13 December 2016 / Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia / China Citic Bank Corporation Limited v. Shibiao Yan / S165830
Country Canada Court Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia Date 13 December 2016 Parties China Citic Bank Corporation Limited v. Shibiao Yan Case number S165830 Applicable NYC Provisions III Source 2016 BCSC 2332 | online: CanLII
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3664&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 28 November 2016 / Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice / Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A. / CV-11386-00CL
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 28 November 2016 Parties Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A. Case number CV-11386-00CL Source 2016 ONSC 7171 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5653&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 16 November 2016 / Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice / Entes Industrial Plants Construction & Erection Contracting Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, et al / CV-15-11142-00CL
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 16 November 2016 Parties Entes Industrial Plants Construction & Erection Contracting Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, et al Case number CV-15-11142-00CL Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source 2016 ONSC 7221, online: CanLII
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3663&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 09 November 2016 / Canada, Court of Appeal for British Columbia / Bruce Edwin McMillan v. Milena Maria McMillan / CA43329
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Appeal for British Columbia Date 09 November 2016 Parties Bruce Edwin McMillan v. Milena Maria McMillan Case number CA43329 Source 2016 BCCA 441 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5421&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 20 July 2016 / Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice / Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela / CV-16-11340-00CL
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 20 July 2016 Parties Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Case number CV-16-11340-00CL Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source 2016 ONSC 4693 | online: CanLII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3662&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 12 April 2016 / Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta / Toyota Tsusho Wheatland Inc. v. Encana Corporation and PrairieSky Royalty Ltd. / 1501 10484
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Date 12 April 2016 Parties Toyota Tsusho Wheatland Inc. v. Encana Corporation and PrairieSky Royalty Ltd. Case number 1501 10484 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | II | II(3) | VI Source 2016 ABQB 209 | online: CanLII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3661&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 08 April 2016 / Canada, Federal Court of Canada / Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Delizia Limited and State of Eritrea / T-1157-13
Country Canada Court Canada, Federal Court of Canada Date 08 April 2016 Parties Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Delizia Limited and State of Eritrea Case number T-1157-13 Source 2016 FC 393 | online: CanLII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5930&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Official TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 08 April 2016 / Canada, Federal Court of Canada / Sunridge Gold Corp. v. Delizia Limited and State of Eritrea / T-1157-13
Country Canada Court Canada, Federal Court of Canada Date 08 April 2016 Parties Sunridge Gold Corp. v. Delizia Limited and State of Eritrea Case number T-1157-13 Source 2016 FC 392 | online: CanLII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5931&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Official TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 14 October 2015 / Canada, Cour supérieure du Québec / Norman Bard et Shirley Bard v. Randal S. Appel / 500-11-049248-152
Country Canada Court Canada, Cour supérieure du Québec Date 14 October 2015 Parties Norman Bard et Shirley Bard v. Randal S. Appel Case number 500-11-049248-152 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III Source 2015 QCCS 4752 | online: CanLII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3660&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 20 April 2015 / Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta / West Coast Installations, Inc. v. Frazier Industrial Company / 1301 14981
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Date 20 April 2015 Parties West Coast Installations, Inc. v. Frazier Industrial Company Case number 1301 14981 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(3) Source 2015 ABQB 257 | online: CanLII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3659&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 07 April 2015 / Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick / 669610 N.B. Ltd., Eric Fisher and Ann Fisher v. Thunder Process Group Inc., Andrew Justason, Terence Bird, Eugene Nowlan and Gordon Neal / MM/14/15
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick Date 07 April 2015 Parties 669610 N.B. Ltd., Eric Fisher and Ann Fisher v. Thunder Process Group Inc., Andrew Justason, Terence Bird, Eugene Nowlan and Gordon Neal Case number MM/14/15 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source 2015 NBQB 087 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5652&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Official TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 18 February 2015 / Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice / Depo Traffic Facilities (Kunshan) Co. v. Vikeda International Logistics and Automotive Supply Ltd. / CV-13-483322
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 18 February 2015 Parties Depo Traffic Facilities (Kunshan) Co. v. Vikeda International Logistics and Automotive Supply Ltd. Case number CV-13-483322 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source 2015 ONSC 999 | online: CanLII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3658&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 02 June 2014 / Canada, Court of Appeal for British Columbia / Sociedade-de-fomento Industrial Private Limited v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Private) Limited / CA041130
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Appeal for British Columbia Date 02 June 2014 Parties Sociedade-de-fomento Industrial Private Limited v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Private) Limited Case number CA041130 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | V Source 2014 BCCA 205 | online: CanLII
reverses : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3657&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 05 May 2014 / Canada, Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba / Brentwood Plastics Inc. v. Topsyn Flexible Packaging Ltd. / CI 12-01-79146
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba Date 05 May 2014 Parties Brentwood Plastics Inc. v. Topsyn Flexible Packaging Ltd. Case number CI 12-01-79146 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV Source 2014 MBQB 97 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5420&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 07 March 2014 / Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia / Assam Company India Limited v. Canoro Resources Ltd. / S127853
Country Canada Court Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia Date 07 March 2014 Parties Assam Company India Limited v. Canoro Resources Ltd. Case number S127853 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source 2014 BCSC 370 | online: CanLII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3656&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 10 October 2013 / Canada, Court of Appeal for British Columbia / Sociedade-de-Fomento Industrial Private Limited v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Private) Limited / CA041130
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 01 October 2013 / Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia / CE International Resources Holdings LLC v. Yeap Soon Sit, S.A., Minerals Ltd. Partnership and Tantalum Technology Inc. / S126437
Country Canada Court Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia Date 01 October 2013 Parties CE International Resources Holdings LLC v. Yeap Soon Sit, S.A., Minerals Ltd. Partnership and Tantalum Technology Inc. Case number S126437 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V Source 2013 BCSC 1804 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5419&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 19 August 2013 / Canada, Cour supérieure du Québec / Bombardier Inc. v. The General Directorate for Defense Armaments and Investments of the Hellenic Ministry of National Defense, New TT Hellenic Postbank S.A. and National Bank Of Canada / 500-17-078501-130
Country Canada Court Canada, Cour supérieure du Québec Date 19 August 2013 Parties Bombardier Inc. v. The General Directorate for Defense Armaments and Investments of the Hellenic Ministry of National Defense, New TT Hellenic Postbank S.A. and National Bank Of Canada Case number 500-17-078501-130 Source 2013 QCCS 6892 | online: CanLII
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5418&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 22 July 2013 / Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia / Sociedade-de-Fomento Industrial Private Limited v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Private) Limited / S112686
Country Canada Court Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia Date 22 July 2013 Parties Sociedade-de-Fomento Industrial Private Limited v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Private) Limited Case number S112686 Source 2013 BCSC 1304 | online: CanLII
Languages English reversed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5416&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 17 June 2013 / Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice / Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario / CV-12-461369
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 17 June 2013 Parties Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Case number CV-12-461369 Source 2013 ONSC 4166 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5415&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 14 June 2013 / Canada, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia / Rusk Renovations Inc. v. Robert Dunsworth, Ingrid Dunsworth, and Europa Stairways Inc. / Hfx No. 389841
Country Canada Court Canada, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Date 14 June 2013 Parties Rusk Renovations Inc. v. Robert Dunsworth, Ingrid Dunsworth, and Europa Stairways Inc. Case number Hfx No. 389841 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | III | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) Source 2013 NSSC 179 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5414&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 08 November 2012 / Canada, Federal Court of Appeal / Canada Moon Shipping Co. Ltd. and Fednav International Ltd. v. Companhia Siderurgia Paulista-Cosipa / A-378-11
Attachment (2)
Official TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 29 February 2012 / Canada, Cour d’appel du Québec / Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. and Ungava Minerals Exploration Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc.
Country Canada Court Canada, Cour d’appel du Québec Date 29 February 2012 Parties Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. and Ungava Minerals Exploration Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc. Source 2012 QCCA 385 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary Ungava Minerals Exploration Inc. (“Ungava”) and Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. (“Neartic”) entered into an agreement with Canadian Royalties Inc. (“CRI”), which included an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in accordance with the Centre d’arbitrage commercial national et international du Québec. A dispute arose and a sole arbitrator rendered an award ordering, inter alia, specific performance of the agreement by Ungava and Nearctic. CRI presented a motion for homologation before the Cour supérieur du Québec (Quebec Superior Court), which was granted. Ungava and Nearctic appealed, seeking an annulment of the award on the grounds that the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction by rendering conclusions of an injunctive nature, rewriting the contract and ignoring certain contractual provisions. The Cour d’appel du Québec (Quebec Court of Appeal) dismissed the appeal, concluding that the sole arbitrator had not exceeded his jurisdiction. Though it did not directly apply the NYC in reaching its decision, it considered that the philosophy governing the court’s involvement in the arbitral process may be traced to foreign legal sources such as the NYC, which reflects the commercial world’s willingness to promote private dispute resolution. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=962&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 04 October 2011 / Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario / United Mexican States v. Cargill, Inc. / C52737
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario Date 04 October 2011 Parties United Mexican States v. Cargill, Inc. Case number C52737 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) Source 107 O.R. (3d) 528, 2011 ONCA 622 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5413&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 12 September 2011 / Canada, Federal Court of Canada / T. Co. Metals LLC v. The Vessel “Federal EMS”, Canada Moon Shipping Co. Ltd. and Fednav International Ltd. / T-1613-08
Country Canada Court Canada, Federal Court of Canada Date 12 September 2011 Parties T. Co. Metals LLC v. The Vessel “Federal EMS”, Canada Moon Shipping Co. Ltd. and Fednav International Ltd. Case number T-1613-08 Source 2011 FC 1067 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary In 2008, T. Co. Metals LLC (“T. Co”) initiated an action against Canada Moon Shipping Co. (“Canada Moon”) and Fednav International Ltd. (“Fednav”) for damages to T. Co’s cargo while travelling from Brazil to Canada on board the Federal Ems, a ship belonging to Canada Moon. To transport the cargo, Fednav had signed a charter party with Companhia Siderurgica Paulista – COSIPA (“COSIPA”) which contained an arbitration clause providing for the resolution of disputes by three arbitrators in New York. After T. Co. initiated proceedings at the Federal Court of Canada against Fednav and Canada Moon, both filed a claim against COSIPA in the Federal Court. COSIPA then filed a motion seeking a stay of the claim in favour of arbitration in New York, relying on the arbitration clause in the charter party. The motion was dismissed by a prothonotary of the Federal Court, who found that a charter party constituted a “contract for the carriage of goods by water” as listed under Section 46 of the Marine Liability Act (“the Act”) and that, as a result, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court could not be ousted. COSIPA appealed. The Federal Court allowed the appeal and set aside the action. When debating whether “contract for the carriage of goods by water” in Section 46 of the Act was to be interpreted as including charter parties, the Federal Court held that Canada was aware of its international obligations, including its support for international arbitration agreements pursuant to the NYC, when it enacted the Act. For this reason, it considered that the term should be interpreted narrowly so as to allow the arbitration clause from the charter party to be given effect. reverses : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=897&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 20 July 2011 / Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario / Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board / C52576
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario Date 20 July 2011 Parties Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board Case number C52576 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source 2011 ONCA 525 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5412&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 24 June 2011 / Canada, Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan / Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Ltd. v. Cora Laich
Country Canada Court Canada, Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan Date 24 June 2011 Parties Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Ltd. v. Cora Laich Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V Source 2011 SKQB 249 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary The Respondent and Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Ltd. (“Subway”) entered into a franchise agreement (“the Agreement”), which contained an arbitration clause referring all disputes arising under the Agreement to arbitration by a sole arbitrator in Bridgeport, Connecticut. A dispute arose and Subway terminated the Agreement and obtained a favourable arbitral award. It then sought enforcement in Saskatchewan. The Respondent Cora Laich argued that the application for enforcement should be dismissed because she had been incapacitated and unable to attend the arbitration hearing, and that the award was penal in nature and its enforcement would be contrary to public policy. The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the application on the grounds that enforcement of the award would offend public policy. The Court of Queen’s Bench found that Subway had met the requirements necessary to obtain recognition of the award under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”). The Court considered that because the Respondent had been able to take part in the arbitration hearing via telephone, she had not been incapacitated. It found, however, that Subway had never fully terminated the Agreement and that even during the arbitral proceedings, the parties had maintained their working relationship, with the Respondent remitting royalties to Subway. On this basis, it considered that because Subway did not actually suffer damages, enforcing the award would amount to “double recovery” and would violate public policy within the meaning of Articles 34 and 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which the Court considered were derived from Article V NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=898&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 21 March 2011 / Canada, Cour du Québec / T.I.G. Assembly Inc. v. Multi-Assemblage Inc. / 500-22-175962-102
Country Canada Court Canada, Cour du Québec Date 21 March 2011 Parties T.I.G. Assembly Inc. v. Multi-Assemblage Inc. Case number 500-22-175962-102 Source 2011 QCCQ 2125 | online: CanLII
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5411&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCanada / 18 March 2011 / Canada, Supreme Court of Canada / Michelle Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc. / 33154
Country Canada Court Canada, Supreme Court of Canada Date 18 March 2011 Parties Michelle Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc. Case number 33154 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source 2011 SCC 15, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 531 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary Michelle Seidel entered into a written cellular service contract with TELUS Communications, Inc. (“TELUS”), a cellular phone provider. The standard contract form contained a mediation and arbitration clause that included a waiver of any right to commence or participate in a class action suit against TELUS. Seidel initiated a claim against TELUS in the British Columbia Supreme Court in 2005 under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“BPCPA”). When she sought to have her claim certified as a class action, TELUS applied for a stay of all proceedings on the basis of the arbitration clause. The trial judge found that TELUS' application was premature because the certification application had not been decided, and denied the stay. TELUS appealed the decision, arguing that the case followed by the British Columbia Supreme Court, the 2004 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision MacKinnon v. Instaloans Financial Solution Centres (“MacKinnon CA”), had been overruled by the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decisions, Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs (“Dell”) and Rogers Wireless Inc. v. Muroff, which both ruled that a class action is a procedural vehicle that does not modify the substantive rights created by an arbitration clause. The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stayed Seidel’s action. Seidel appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the Court of Appeal in a 5-4 decision, holding that Seidel's class action could go forward. The Court based its ruling upon a finding that the enactment of the BPCPA manifested a legislative intent to prohibit any contractual waiver of "rights, benefits or protections" provided therein and that the remedies offered by private arbitration are different in scope and quality than those offered under the BPCPA. Consequently, the Court held that Seidel’s claims relying on the BPCPA could go forward, while any others would be subject to binding arbitration. The dissenting opinion argued that British Columbia's legislature had manifested its intent to honor arbitration clauses, absent a clear legislative statement to the contrary, by adopting the NYC into domestic legislation. It noted that the requirement of deference to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction is related directly to the role of the court that must, in considering an application for a stay of proceedings, determine whether the agreement is “void, inoperative or incapable of being performed” pursuant to Article II(3) NYC. The Court recognized that the general rule is that arbitrators should be the first to consider challenges to their jurisdiction, and therefore the expressions “void”, “inoperative” and “incapable of being performed” should be interpreted narrowly. It stated that courts should be mindful to avoid an interpretation that makes it possible to sidestep the competence-competence principle and turns the Convention’s “inoperative” exception into a back door for a party wanting to “escape” the agreement. affirms : reverses : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=555&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF