Egypt / 22 January 2008 / Egypt, Court of Cassation / Misr Foreign Trade Co. v. R.D Harboties (Mercantile) / 2010/64
| Country | Egypt |
| Court | Egypt, Court of Cassation |
| Date | 22 January 2008 |
| Parties | Misr Foreign Trade Co. v. R.D Harboties (Mercantile) |
| Case number | 2010/64 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(1)(a) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 16 November 1977, Misr Foreign Trade Co. (“Misr Foreign Trade”) and R.D Harboties (Mercantile) (“Harboties”) concluded a contract for the supply of fertilizers which provided in its Article 13 for arbitration in London. Claiming that one of the conditions of the contract was breached, Harboties initiated arbitration proceedings which led to the issuance of an arbitral award ordering Misr Foreign Trade to pay damages to Harboties. Misr Foreign Trade then filed a claim before the South Cairo Court of First Instance requesting a declaration that it was not liable for any obligations under the contract, but the Court rejected its claim on 15 December 1991 because it had already been settled by the arbitral award. The decision of the Court of First Instance was confirmed by the Cairo Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 30 December 1993. Misr Foreign Trade challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged (i) that the arbitral award issued in its regard was a preliminary award and not a definitive one, which is contrary to Article V(1)(e) NYC, (ii) that Misr Foreign Trade signed the contract on behalf of other entities, meaning that the contract and the arbitration agreement it contained were binding to these entities and not Misr Foreign Trade which is not a party to the arbitration agreement according to Articles II and V(1)(a) NYC, and (iii) that the award was contrary to public policy as it breached Article 226 of the Civil Code by awarding interest from the date they were due and not from the date of the award. The Court of Cassation rejected the Claimant's challenge . The Court considered that arbitral awards have a res judicata effect (“autorité de la chose jugée”) starting from the date of their issuance and maintain this res judicata effect as long as they exist. The Court rejected the claim made by Misr Foreign Trade that the arbitral award was not definitive as well as its claim that it is not a party to the arbitration agreement given that it signed the contract containing said arbitration agreement. The Court also ruled that the arbitral award was not contrary to public policy as Article 226 of the Civil Code is a mandatory rule that is unrelated to public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
