United Kingdom / 12 May 1999 / England and Wales, Court of Appeal / Westacre Investments Inc v. Jugoimport-SDRP Holding Co Ltd / QBCMI 1998/0485/3
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Court | England and Wales, Court of Appeal |
| Date | 12 May 1999 |
| Parties | Westacre Investments Inc v. Jugoimport-SDRP Holding Co Ltd |
| Case number | QBCMI 1998/0485/3 |
| Source |
[1999] EWCA Civ 1401; [2000] QB 288 | online: BAILII |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Westacre served as a consultant to a Yugoslavian government agency to procure contracts for the sale of military equipment in Kuwait. The consultancy agreement, which was governed by Swiss law, provided for arbitration in Switzerland under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. A dispute arose and Westacre initiated arbitration. The defendants alleged that the agreement contemplated that the contracts in Kuwait would be obtained through bribes and that it was therefore void on public policy grounds. The tribunal dismissed this argument and made an award in favour of Westacre. Based on the tribunal's factual finding that there was no evidence of bribery or other illegality, the Swiss Federal Tribunal also declined to annul the award on public policy grounds. Westacre thereafter sought to enforce the award in England. The High Court refused to set aside an order granting leave to enforce the award. The High Court also refused the defendants leave to amend their defence to include claims that Westacre's witnesses had given perjured evidence in the arbitration. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for non-enforcement under the public policy ground in section 5(3) of the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates, and whose wording is equivalent to, Article V(2)(b) NYC). The Court reasoned that it was entitled to consider that the tribunal had examined all relevant public policy considerations. It held that English public policy was not violated when a tribunal enforced a contract that did not violate applicable domestic public policy per the contract’s proper law or curial law. This was the case even if the direct application of English public policy might have led to a different conclusion. The Court also approved the High Court's decision to refuse leave to amend the defence, noting the High Court's reference to the potential effects on finality of NYC awards. |
| affirms : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
