United Kingdom / 19 January 2001 / England and Wales, High Court / Tongyuan (USA) International Trading Group v. Uni-Clan Ltd / 2000 Folio No. 1143
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Court | England and Wales, High Court |
| Date | 19 January 2001 |
| Parties | Tongyuan (USA) International Trading Group v. Uni-Clan Ltd |
| Case number | 2000 Folio No. 1143 |
| Source |
[Unreported] |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Uni-clan (the sellers) and Tongyuan (the buyers) entered into a contract for the sale, installation and testing of sachet-filling machines in China. The contract provided for arbitration by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC"), in one of two named locations. Disputes arose and Tongyuan pursued arbitration in accordance with the parties' arbitration agreement. Uni-Clan, in the main, did not participate in the hearings. The tribunal issued an award in favour of Tongyuan. Tongyuan obtained leave to enforce the award in the United Kingdom. Uni-Clan sought to have the order granting leave to enforce set aside on three grounds. First, that the award was a nullity under section 103(2)(e) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article (V)(1)(d) NYC), because the hearings had been held in a location different from those agreed in the contract. Second, that the award was not expressed in a form enforceable as a judgment. Third, that Uni-Clan should be permitted to cross-claim in relation to the award. The third claim invoked the public policy ground for non-enforcement under section 103(3) of the Act (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(2)(b) NYC). The High Court refused to set aside the order granting leave to enforce. It held first, that the different hearing location did not render the award a nullity, noting that there was no prejudice to Uni-Clan because it had not participated in the hearings. Second, that the form of the award did not preclude judgment; thus, it was unnecessary to determine whether this was a ground on which enforcement might be refused under section 101 of the Act (providing for the enforcement of NYC awards as judgments). Third, that the award was not unenforceable under the public policy ground of section 103(3) in the Act. In so ruling, the Court distinguished between unfairness in the rendering of an award and unfairness after the award has been rendered. In the latter case, the validity of the award is not at issue. Noting the strong public policy in favour of enforcing awards, the Court held that the cross-claim by Uni-Clan did not warrant non-enforcement of an otherwise valid NYC award. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
