United Kingdom / 20 January 1997 / England and Wales, High Court / China Agribusiness Development Corporation v. Balli Trading
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Court | England and Wales, High Court |
| Date | 20 January 1997 |
| Parties | China Agribusiness Development Corporation v. Balli Trading |
| Source |
[1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 76 |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The parties entered into a contract for the sale of steel coils. The contract contained an arbitration agreement referring disputes to the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade ("FETAC"), under FETAC's provisional rules. A dispute arose, by which time FETAC had been renamed the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC"). CIETAC's award, which was mainly in favour of the buyer, was made under the CIETAC rules in force at the time of arbitration, rather than the FETAC provisional rules stipulated in the contract. When the buyer attempted to enforce the award in the United Kingdom, the seller resisted on the ground that the award violated section 5(2)(e) of the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(1)(d) NYC) because the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties' agreement. In particular, the fee arrangements were different under the two sets of rules. The High Court refused to set aside leave to enforce the award. It held that the parties had agreed to the rules of FETAC or a successor institution that were in effect when the arbitration began. Were it otherwise, the court would exercise its discretion derived from the word "may" in section 5(2) of the Act to enforce the award. In this case, the difference in fee arrangements between the two sets of rules did not sufficiently prejudice the losing party to justify non-enforcement. The Court also noted that this argument had been raised very late in the proceedings. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
