-
Enforcement of arbitration awards: jurisdictional defences
Online Published Date : 17 December 2021 | Appeared in issue: Vol 22 No 01 - 17 December 2021
The decision of the Supreme Court in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal to refuse recognition and enforcement of an award made in Paris, is a crucial one on the interpretation of various elements of the Arbitration Act 1996 in its implementation of the New York Convention. The substantive issue was whether the jurisdictional question was to be determined by English or French law, but the Supreme Court made important observations on the manner in which jurisdictional challenges to enforcement are to be determined.
Arbitration Law Monthly
-
Breach of arbitration clause: anti-suit injunctions
Online Published Date : 17 December 2021 | Appeared in issue: Vol 22 No 01 - 17 December 2021
The short decision of Calver J in UAU v HVB [2021] EWHC 1548 (Comm) is an excellent exemplar of the approach adopted by the English courts in granting anti-suit relief.
-
Dispute resolution clauses: jurisdiction and admissibility
Online Published Date : 17 December 2021 | Appeared in issue: Vol 22 No 01 - 17 December 2021
In C v D [2021] HKCFI 1474, Godfrey Lam J in the Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance has confirmed the distinction drawn in recent cases in England and Singapore between jurisdiction and admissibility. The effect of the decision is that any dispute as to whether the conditions precedent to arbitration laid down in a dispute resolution clause is for the tribunal and not for the court to resolve.
-
Enforcement of arbitration awards: constitution of the tribunal
Online Published Date : 17 December 2021 | Appeared in issue: Vol 22 No 01 - 17 December 2021
In Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd v Energy City Qatar Holding Co [2021] FCAFC 110, the Federal Full Court of Australia refused to enforce an arbitration award made in Qatar. The Full Court, consisting of Allsop CJ and Middleton and Stewart JJ, held that the fact that the tribunal had been appointed by the Qatar court did not preclude a finding by the enforcing court that the appointment was contrary to the parties’ agreement.