United Kingdom / 24 July 1991 / England and Wales, House of Lords / Hiscox v. Outhwaite
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Court | England and Wales, House of Lords |
| Date | 24 July 1991 |
| Parties | Hiscox v. Outhwaite |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | VI |
| Source |
[1992] 1 A.C. 562 | online: ICLR |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The parties referred a dispute concerning liabilities under a reinsurance contract to arbitration by a sole arbitrator in London. Both the arbitration agreement and the reinsurance contract were governed by English law. On 20 November 1990, the arbitrator made an interim award. The award was signed in Paris, but the parties were notified that it was ready for collection from a London address. Mr. Hiscox brought a series of applications in respect of the award under each of the Arbitration Act 1950 (U.K.) (“the 1950 Act”) and Arbitration Act 1979 (U.K.) (“the 1979 Act”). Mr. Outhwaite contended (i) that the award had been “made” in Paris, so as to be a “Convention award” for the purposes of the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) (“the 1975 Act”), being defined thereunder as “an award made in pursuance of an arbitration agreement in the territory of a state, other than the United Kingdom, which is a party to the [NYC]”, and (ii) that section 3(2) of the 1975 Act defeated the supervisory jurisdiction of the English court with respect to the applications made under the 1950 and 1979 Acts. Section 3(2) of the 1975 Act stated that: “Any Convention award which would be enforceable under this Act shall be treated as binding for all purposes on the persons as between whom it was made, and may accordingly be relied on by any of those persons by way of defence, set-off or otherwise in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom; and any reference in this Act to enforcing a Convention award shall be construed as including references to relying on such an award”. The judge ruled that the award was “made” at the seat of arbitration, which was London, and that it was therefore not a “Convention award” to which the provisions of the 1975 Act applied. The Court of Appeal reversed this ruling, but dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr. Outhwaite was estopped from denying the supervisory jurisdiction of the English courts to entertain the proceedings under the 1950 and 1979 Acts. Mr. Outhwaite appealed. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. In so ruling, it agreed with the Court of Appeal that an award is “made” when and where it is perfected and that an award is perfected when it is signed. It also concluded, however, that the English courts remained capable of exercising their supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration and of adjourning, if necessary, any decision on the enforceability of the award until the proceedings under the 1950 and 1979 Acts had been determined. The appeal was dismissed on this ground. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
