Case Law
Guide
Available documents (940)
sorted by (Date of decision descending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
United States / 15 January 2021 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit / LLC SPC Stileks v. The Republic of Moldova / 19-7142
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Date 15 January 2021 Parties LLC SPC Stileks v. The Republic of Moldova Case number 19-7142 Applicable NYC Provisions I | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | VI Source online: PACER
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6584&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Date 10 December 2020 Parties Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A. Case number 1:19-cv-11654-ALC Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source online: PACER
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6580&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Date 25 November 2020 Parties Rodrigo R. Pagaduan v. Carnival Corporation, et al. Case number 19-3400-cv Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source online: PACER
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6577&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas Date 17 November 2020 Parties Waleed Bin Al-Qarqani, et al. v. Arab American Oil Company, et al. Case number 4:18-CV-1807 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) Source online: PACER
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6575&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Date 06 November 2020 Parties Baris Ozkaptan v. Citigroup, Inc. Case number 20-CV-747 (JMF) Applicable NYC Provisions I | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source online: PACER
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6572&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington Date 27 October 2020 Parties Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. Case number C18-1360 TSZ Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source online: PACER
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6570&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, Supreme Court of United Kingdom Date 09 October 2020 Parties Enka Insaat ve Sanayi A.S v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) Source [2020] UKSC 38 | online: BAILII
Languages English reverses : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6471&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 16 September 2020 Parties Government of India v. Vedanta Limited, Ravva Oil (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Videocon Industries Limited Case number Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 2020 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.sci.gov.in (website of the Supreme Court of India)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6372&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Date 14 September 2020 Parties Tetronics (International) Limited v. BlueOak Arkansas, LLC Case number 4:20CV00530 SWW Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | VI Source online: PACER
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6563&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeal of Lithuania) Date 03 September 2020 Parties Basketball club of Surgut City “Universitet” v. L. L. Case number e2T-47-381/2020 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.apeliacinis.lt (website of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania)
Languages Lithuanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6370&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit Date 17 August 2020 Parties Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles, S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B. de C.V., GCC Latinoamérica, S.A. de C.V. Case number 19-1151 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | VI Source online: PACER
Languages English affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6354&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country China Court China, 广东省广州市中级人民法院 (Guangdong, Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court) Date 06 August 2020 Parties 布兰特伍德工业有限公司 [Brentwood Industries, Inc. (U.S.A)] v. 广东阀安龙机械成套设备工程有限公司 Case number (2015)穗中法民四初字第62号 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) Source http://wenshu.court.gov.cn (China Judgements Online)
Languages Chinese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6559&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California Date 04 August 2020 Parties MBA Community Loans PLC v. Mark Castellani Case number 20-cv-02359-MMC Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(2) Source online: PACER
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6352&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Date 30 July 2020 Parties PB Life and Annuity Co. Ltd. v. Universal Life Insurance Company Case number 20-cv-2284 (LJL) Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source online: PACER
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6349&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Date 23 July 2020 Parties CEF Energia, B.V. et al. v. Italian Republic Case number 19-cv-3443 (KBJ) Applicable NYC Provisions I | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source online: PACER
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6347&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal of Amsterdam) Date 14 July 2020 Parties 200.224.067/01 Case number 200.224.067/01 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) Source https://www.rechtspraak.nl (official website of the Netherlands judiciary system)
Languages Dutch see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6343&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, High Court Date 10 July 2020 Parties Shell Energy Europe Limited v. Meta Energia SpA Case number CL-2020-000271 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | VI Source [2020] EWHC 1799 (Comm) | online: BAILII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6243&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeal of Lithuania) Date 03 July 2020 Parties Dreymoor Fertilizers Overseas PTE LTD v. AVAGRO and AVAGRO LLC Case number e2T-34-943/2020 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.apeliacinis.lt (website of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania)
Languages Lithuanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6369&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country China Court China, 浙江省嘉兴市中级人民法院 (Zhejiang, Jiaxing Intermediate People’s Court) Date 01 July 2020 Parties 上海佳船机械设备进出口有限公司 v. 美克斯海洋工程设备股份有限公司 Case number (2019)浙04协外认1号 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://wenshu.court.gov.cn (China Judgements Online)
Languages Chinese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6558&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country China Court China, 浙江省嘉兴市中级人民法院 (Zhejiang, Jiaxing Intermediate People’s Court) Date 01 July 2020 Parties 上海佳船机械设备进出口有限公司 v. 美克斯海洋工程设备股份有限公司 Case number (2019)浙04协外认2号 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://wenshu.court.gov.cn (China Judgements Online)
Languages Chinese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6557&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeal of Lithuania) Date 30 June 2020 Parties Univers Acier Morocco v. PAO “Murmanskoje morskoje parochodstvo” Case number e2T-35-381/2020 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.apeliacinis.lt (website of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania)
Languages Lithuanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6368&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Date 19 June 2020 Parties Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria and Ministry of Petroleum Resources of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Case number 18-7154 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source online: PACER
Languages English reverses : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6332&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country China Court China, 广州海事法院 (Guangzhou Maritime Court) Date 17 June 2020 Parties 安富尔自由贸易区公司 (Emphor FZCO) v. 广东粤新海洋工程装备股份有限公司 Case number (2020)粤72协外认1号 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(2) Source http://wenshu.court.gov.cn (China Judgements Online)
Languages Chinese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6556&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Date 08 June 2020 Parties Denver Global Products, Inc. v. Roger Leon, Jeanne Hendrix, Keith Piercy et al. Case number 18-1853 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source online: PACER
Languages English affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6329&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 02 June 2020 Parties M/S. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. Case number Civil Appeal No. 2562 of 2006 and No. 2564 of 2006 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source https://www.sci.gov.in (website of the Supreme Court of India)
Languages English Summary Summary prepared by Ishita Mishra (Advocate, Supreme Court of India | Chambers of Mr. Gourab Banerji)
This case was the final instalment in the Centrotrade series (which had seen two previous rounds of litigations at the Supreme Court), and finally enforced in 2020, a foreign arbitral award that had been passed in 2001. This dispute between the parties had arisen with respect to the quantity of dry weight copper concentrate that had to be supplied by Hindustan Copper Ltd (the “Respondent”) to Centrotrade, the Appellant, pursuant to a contract for sale. Centrotrade is a U.S. Corporation which had entered into the above-mentioned contract for sale of 15,500 DMT of copper concentrate which was to be delivered by the Respondent at the Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat. Clause 14 of this contract for sale contained a two-tier arbitration clause, which provided for at the first stage, an arbitration in India and then at the second stage, offered the parties an option to ‘appeal’ against the award of the Indian arbitrator by conducting a second arbitration in London under ICC Rules.
In 1996, Centrotrade had invoked the arbitration clause against the Respondent. On 15 June 1999, a nil award had been passed by the Indian arbitrator (“First Award”). After the passing of this award, Centrotrade then utilised the provisions of clause 14 to initiate a second arbitration under ICC Rules in London. In these proceedings, an award was passed by Sir Jeremy Cooke QC on 29 September 2001 in favour of Centrotrade (“Second Award”). Centrotrade now sought to enforce this award in India and filed an application for enforcement of this award before the Calcutta High Court. The case was called before a single judge at the Calcutta High Court who enforced this award. However, the Respondent appealed this decision of the Single Judge, and on appeal, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court refused to enforce the Second Award. They observed that the Second Award was not a foreign award as both the arbitral awards (the First and the Second Awards) had been delivered by arbitrators who exercised concurrent jurisdiction and hence, the First Award and the Second Award were mutually destructive. The court held that neither award could be enforced under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Indian Arbitration Act”). Centrotrade, then appealed this judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court before the Supreme Court of India. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India then further referred this appeal to a larger bench as two separate judgments had been delivered by a two-judge bench in Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v HCL (2006) 11 SCC 245.
This appeal was then heard by a three-judge bench. This bench now focused on two main issues, (i) whether a two-tier arbitration clause was permissible under Indian law, and (ii) if yes, whether the Second Award would be recognised as a ‘foreign award’ enforceable under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The first issue was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court in Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v HCL (2017) 2 SCC 228. The second issue was referred to another bench of the Supreme Court on account of time constraints facing the 2017 bench.
The second issue related to the enforcement of the Second Award. The Court in ruling on the recognition and enforcement of the Second Award after noting that no challenge had been filed at the seat court against the Second Award, looked at (i) whether the arbitrator should have determined the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary question?, and (ii) whether the Respondent was unable to present its case and in particular at the meaning of the word ‘otherwise’ when interpreting ‘otherwise unable to present his case’ under Section 48(1)(b)? The Respondent argued that the arbitrator the ought to have determined the question of jurisdiction before going into the substantive issues. The Court observed that no such argument had been raised by the Respondent in the past proceedings and then went on to observe on fact that there was no evidence produced which unequivocally showed that the arbitrator sought to take up the plea as to jurisdiction as a preliminary objection. The Respondent then argued that the Second Award must be refused enforcement under Section 48(1)(b) as the Respondent had not been given the full opportunity to present its case by the arbitrator. In evaluating this submission of the Respondent, the court while inferring this provision, referred to the NYC and attributed a narrower meaning to the word “otherwise” as used in Section 48(1)(b) (“…the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case”). The court did so, relying on its judgment in Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi 2020 SCC OnLine SC 177 which emphasised on the pro-enforcement bias that runs through the NYC and Part II of the Indian Arbitration Act. The court also noted that an arbitrator’s ‘misconduct’ (as defined under the older (Indian) Arbitration Act, 1940) was a broader ground for setting aside an award, than a party being unable to present its case before the arbitrator as provided for under Section 48(1)(b).
The court then went on to examine what would constitute a party being ‘unable to present its case’. The court took note of judgments from the United Kingdom (Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel Ltd. (1999) C.L.C. 647, Eastern European Engineering v. Vijay Consulting (2019) 1 LLR 1 (QBD), Cuckurova Holding A.S. v. Sonera Holding B.V. (2014) UKPC 15), United States (Jorf Lasfar Energy Co. v. AMCI Export Corp. 2008 WL 1228930, Consorcio Rive v. Briggs of Cancun 134 F. Supp 2d 789, the US District Court, E.D. Louisiana, Four Seasons Hotels v. Consorcio Barr S.A. 613 Supp 2d 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2009)), Hong Kong (Nanjing Cereals v. Luckmate Commodities XXI Y.B. Com. Arb. 542 (1996)) and Italy (De Maio Giuseppe v. Interskins Y.B. Comm. Arb. XXVII (2002) 492) which interpreted this phrase in the context of their domestic arbitration legislations and under Article V(1)(b) NYC and then analysed the facts of the present case. The court noted that the Sir Cooke had provided the Respondent with several opportunities to advance documents and legal submissions in its support. The court noted that, the Respondent had chosen to not participate in the arbitral proceedings in relation to the Second Award until August 2001 and in spite of this, had been granted several time extensions (as requested) and that even submissions made by the Respondent beyond agreed timelines had been taken into account by Sir Cooke before passing his award. The court held that there was no mistake in the conduct of the arbitral proceedings as undertaken by Sir Cooke. Additionally, the court also observed that an enforcing court under Section 48 did not have the power to remand matters back to an ICC arbitrator for him / her to pass a fresh award. Consequently, the Supreme Court enforced the Second Award and allowed Centrotrade’s appeal.
reverses : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6374&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Date 29 May 2020 Parties CPR Management, S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures, L.P. & Devon Park Associates, L.P. Case number 18-1973 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source online: PACER
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6327&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 27 May 2020 Parties A. SA v. B. Ltd. Case number 5A_1046/2019 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6301&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country China Court China, 天津市第一中级人民法院 (Tianjin No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court) Date 18 May 2020 Parties FSOJ国际有限责任公司 (FSOJ International LLC) v. 天津北方电影集团有限公司 Case number (2018) 津01协外认3号 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) Source http://wenshu.court.gov.cn (China Judgements Online)
Languages Chinese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6554&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
