We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close

DALLAH REAL ESTATE AND TOURISM HOLDING CO V THE MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

Lloyd's Law Reporter

DALLAH REAL ESTATE AND TOURISM HOLDING CO V THE MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

[2010] UKSC 46, United Kingdom Supreme Court, Lord Hope, Lord Saville, Lord Mance, Lord Collins, Lord Clarke, 3 November 2010

Arbitration - Enforcement of award - Validity of arbitration agreement - Whether an arbitration agreement in existence between the parties - Whether enforcement could be challenged on the basis that the award was not valid under the laws of the country where the award was made - Arbitration Act 1996, section 103 - New York Convention 1958

The appellant, Dallah, sought to enforce an award made against the respondent government by an International Chamber of Commerce tribunal sitting in Paris. The award was made against the government on the basis that it was "a true party" to an agreement dated 10 September 1996 expressed to be made between and signed on behalf of Dallah and a trust, which contained an arbitration clause referring disputes or differences between Dallah and the trust to ICC arbitration. The trust had been created by Ordinance for the purpose of the bargain and subsequently ceased to exist when the bargain collapsed and the Ordinance was never promulgated into law. The government now resisted enforcement of the award on the ground that the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law of the country where the award was made, that is under French law. Dallah's case was that the government at all times had been an unnamed party to the agreement containing the arbitration clause. It was common ground that it had never submitted to the ICC arbitration. At first instance leave to enforce the award was at first granted but the order was reversed in a subsequent decision following an oral hearing. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. This was Dallah's appeal against that decision.

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?

Devices

Request a trial Find out more