Arbitration Law Monthly

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Astro Nusantara International BV and Others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and Others [2016] HKCA 595 has given detailed consideration to the question whether a court asked to enforce an arbitration award under the New York Convention has a discretion to enforce even where the respondent has made out the argument that the award was made without jurisdiction.

In Costain Ltd v Tarmac Holdings Ltd [2017] EWHC 319 (TCC) Coulson J had to determine not only whether there was an arbitration agreement in respect of the subject matter of the legal proceedings, but also whether – for a wide variety of suggested reasons – any such agreement was null and void or inoperative.

In Symbion Power LLC v Venco Imtiaz Construction Co [2017] EWHC 348 (TCC) Jefford J had to determine whether the arbitration tribunal had failed to deal with all the issues that were put to it so that the award should be set aside or varied on the grounds of serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996.

In Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd [2017] EWHC 797 (Comm), Andrew Baker J considered whether a defendant who had applied to set aside an enforcement order pending a determination on the validity of the award in the curial courts could be required to provide security for the award in proceedings brought by the claimant to adjourn the defendant’s application.

In Smyth-Tyrrell and Another v Sowden [2017] EWHC 2331 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews considered and refused an application for an extension of the 28-day period permitted for an appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitration was held under the mandatory requirement in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, but the court proceeded on the basis that the 1996 Act’s principles applied.