United Kingdom / 05 December 2007 / England and Wales, Court of Appeal / C v. D / A3/2007/1697
|England and Wales, Court of Appeal
|05 December 2007
|C v. D
|Applicable NYC Provisions
 EWCA Civ 1282 | online: BAILII
|C, a U.S. corporation, entered into an insurance policy with D, a U.S. insurance company with an English branch. The policy was governed by New York law and provided for arbitration in London under the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the U.K. Act"). A dispute arose and an arbitration took place in London. The tribunal issued a partial award in C's favour. This award was agreed to be final under English law as to the matters it decided. D applied to the tribunal to correct the award and also declared its intention to request a U.S. court to vacate the award. D claimed that the award was outside the scope of the NYC and could be vacated under U.S. law because the tribunal had manifestly disregarded New York law. The tribunal made clerical amendments to the award but refused to substantively amend it. C applied to the High Court for an anti-suit injunction enjoining D from seeking any recourse in a U.S. court. C argued that the award could only be challenged under the U.K. Act and could only be refused enforcement on Article V NYC grounds. C also claimed that challenging the award in a non-English forum was inconsistent with the scheme of the U.K. Act and the NYC. D responded that according to U.S. arbitration law, the award was not a NYC award and could therefore be challenged in the United States. The High Court granted the anti-suit injunction. D appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the anti-suit injunction. Even assuming that under U.S. law the award was not a NYC award and so could be challenged on grounds other than Article V NYC, the Court held that by choosing an English arbitral seat and English arbitration law, the parties had agreed to restrict judicial remedies on the award to those available under English law and in an English forum.
Adobe Acrobat PDF