Egypt / 21 May 1990 / Egypt, Court of Cassation / Harbottle Company Limited v. Egypt for Foreign Trade Company / 815/52
| Country | Egypt |
| Court | Egypt, Court of Cassation |
| Date | 21 May 1990 |
| Parties | Harbottle Company Limited v. Egypt for Foreign Trade Company |
| Case number | 815/52 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | IV | V(1)(c) | V(2)(b) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 15 November 1975, Harbottle Company Limited (“Harbottle”) and Egypt for Foreign Trade Company (“Egypt Foreign Trade”) entered into a contract by which Harbottle undertook to supply a quantity of coal to Egypt Foreign Trade. The contract provided for the settlement of disputes through arbitration in London in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA Arbitration Rules”). Harbottle initiated arbitration proceedings, claiming that Egypt Foreign Trade had breached its obligations under the contract. On 29 November 1978, the sole arbitrator issued an award ordering Egypt Foreign Trade to pay damages to Harbottle, along with 8% interest and arbitration costs. On 19 May 1980, Harbottle sought enforcement of the award before the South Cairo Court of First Instance, which rejected Harbottle’s request for enforcement. On 21 January 1982, the Cairo Court of Appeal overruled the judgment of the South Cairo Court of First Instance and granted enforcement to the award only to the extent of ordering Egypt Foreign Trade to pay damages. It also ordered Harbottle to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance for failing to submit the original award in those proceedings. On 2 March 1982, Harbottle challenged the judgment of the Cairo Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged, inter alia, that the Cairo Court of Appeal had incorrectly applied the law by not enforcing the part of the award ordering Egypt Foreign Trade to pay interest and arbitration costs. Harbottle also claimed that it should not bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance as it had produced a copy of the award which was equivalent to the original. The Court of Cassation partially overruled the judgment of the Cairo Court of Appeal and granted enforcement to the award, ordering Egypt Foreign Trade to pay damages, arbitration costs and interest, after reducing the interest rate to 5%. The Court noted that according to Articles V(1)(c) and V(2)(b) NYC, Egyptian Courts should reject the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards where they contravene public policy in Egypt and not where they only contravene mandatory legal rules. It held that where only part of an arbitral award contravenes public policy, Egyptian Courts should enforce those parts of the award which are not in contravention with public policy. It also stated that Egyptian Courts should refrain from reviewing the merits of the award. The Court found that the Egyptian legal rule allowing a maximum interest rate of 5% in commercial matters constituted a rule of public policy and granted enforcement to the order for payment of interest after limiting the interest rate to the 5% maximum. The Court granted enforcement to the order requiring payment of arbitration costs on grounds unrelated to the NYC. Finally, the Court of Cassation rejected Harbottle’s challenge to the decision of the Cairo Court of Appeal ordering Harbottle to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. It observed that in accordance with Articles 299 and 301 of the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and Article IV NYC, the party applying for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award had to provide the Court with the original award and arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof, along with certified Arabic translations of these documents where the original documents are in a foreign language. The Court concluded that, as Harbottle had failed to provide the Court of First Instance with the required documents, the Cairo Court of Appeal had rightly ordered it to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
