United Kingdom / 28 June 2007 / England and Wales, High Court / C v. D / 2007 Folio No. 540
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Court | England and Wales, High Court |
| Date | 28 June 2007 |
| Parties | C v. D |
| Case number | 2007 Folio No. 540 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V |
| Source |
[2007] EWHC 1541 (Comm) | online: BAILII |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | 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. The Court noted that if, under U.S. law, the award was not a NYC award and so could be challenged on grounds other than Article V NYC, the incorporation of the NYC into U.S. domestic law did not seem to fulfil NYC treaty obligations, at least from an English perspective. Ultimately, however, the Court decided that it did not need to determine this issue. It held that, by choosing an English arbitral seat and arbitration under the U.K. Act, the parties had agreed to restrict judicial remedies to those available under English law and in an English forum. The Court also noted that D's ability to challenge enforcement of the award under Article V NYC in another jurisdiction was not affected. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
