United States / 13 July 2012 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit / Thai–Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Hongsa Lignite (LAO PDR) Co. Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic / 11–3536–cv
Country | United States |
Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
Date | 13 July 2012 |
Parties | Thai–Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Hongsa Lignite (LAO PDR) Co. Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic |
Case number | 11–3536–cv |
Source | online: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov (official website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) |
Languages | English |
Summary | The Petitioners-Appellees, Thai–Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (“TLL”), obtained an arbitral award in Malaysia against the Respondent-Appellant, the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (“Laos”), pursuant to an arbitration agreement in the Parties’ Project Development Agreement. At TLL’s request, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the award pursuant to the NYC. Laos appealed, arguing that the award should be vacated because the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and that the District Court had erred by applying a deferential standard, rather than a de novo standard, of review to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdictional findings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s confirmation of the arbitral award. It reasoned that the lower court had properly applied a deferential standard of review to the tribunal’s jurisdictional decisions. The Court held that by incorporating the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL Rules”) into their arbitration agreement the parties had “clearly and unmistakably” intended to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators, including all issues concerning the scope and validity of the arbitration agreement. The Court stated that once delegated, questions of arbitrability, like other questions related to the merits, are a matter of contractual interpretation, which is beyond the scope of judicial review. Thus, according to the Court, the lower court had properly applied a deferential, rather than de novo, standard of review to the tribunal’s jurisdictional findings. |
see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |