Sentences with phrase «enforcement of an arbitral award where»

Not exact matches

As part of China, Hong Kong is also a Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) Contracting State, ensuring that arbitral awards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitEnforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) Contracting State, ensuring that arbitral awards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitralArbitral Awards (the New York Convention) Contracting State, ensuring that arbitral awards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitral aAwards (the New York Convention) Contracting State, ensuring that arbitral awards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitralarbitral awards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitral aawards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitenforcement of arbitralarbitral awardsawards.

Article 2 of the 1927 Geneva Convention states in relevant part: «If the award has not covered all the questions submitted to the arbitral tribunal, the competent authority of the country where recognition or enforcement of the award is sought can, if it think fit, postpone such recognition or enforcement or grant it subject to such guarantee as that authority may decide».

Article V (1)(d) provides that the composition of the arbitral authority must have been in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or in the absence of an agreement, the law of the country where the arbitration took place, failing which recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused.

Further, where an application to set aside the arbitral award was pending before a court at the seat of the arbitration, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales considered that the partial enforcement provisions of article V (1)(c) could be applied to enforce the parts of the award that were not subject to challenge.836

Courts have consistently confirmed this in relation to article V (1)(c).837 For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a party's attempt to raise a challenge under article V (1)(c) to oppose an order compelling arbitration, that is, before the arbitral proceedings had even taken place.838 The court noted that the provision could only be invoked by a party opposing enforcement of an award, which was not possible in circumstances where no award had been issued, and also unlikely where the party raising the challenge was the claimant in the would - be arbitration, and thus not the party who would be in a position to challenge any resulting arbitral award absent any counterclaims.839

The New York Convention, however, limits the scope of article V (1)(c) by omitting language found in article 2 of the 1927 Geneva Convention which permitted enforcing authorities to delay, or create conditions in relation to, the enforcement of awards, where the award did not cover all the questions submitted to the arbitral tribunal.793

Although article V (1)(d) moves beyond the text of the 1927 Geneva Convention, it is not as liberal as certain arbitration statutes, which attach even less importance than the New York Convention to the law of the country where the arbitration took place at the recognition and enforcement stage.854 As explained in the chapter on article VII, 855 the Convention sets only a «ceiling», or the maximum level of control, which courts of the Contracting States may exert over foreign arbitral awards.

In some circumstances, other international treaties, or the domestic law of the country where enforcement is sought, will also apply to the question of whether a foreign arbitral award should be recognized and enforced.

Article V (1)(c) of the New York Convention allows the competent authorities in Contracting States to refuse recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, or part of that award, where the award contains decisions on matters «beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration».

In a case concerning an application for enforcement that was subject to both the New York Convention and the European Convention, the Italian Court of Cassation decided that enforcement should be denied where the presumption under Article VIII had not been rebutted because one party seeking enforcement had expressly requested during the arbitral proceeding that reasons be given for the award.

Yet the enforcement of international arbitral awards continues to be one of the key challenges of the international arbitration system, complicated further where the non-complying award debtor is a state.

When an option, we assist our clients with court appeals and other court challenges in respect of arbitral awards, in the enforcement of awards that have not been complied with or in resisting enforcement where appropriate, including working with trusted foreign counsel should the relevant proceedings be abroad.

Canada acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1986 (the «UNCITRAL Model Law») declaring that it would apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, that were considered commercial under the laws of Canada, except in the case of the Province of Quebec where the law did not provide for such limitation.

Lawyers at Covington & Burling consider the enforcement of arbitral awards in Sub-Saharan Africa, where antiquated arbitration laws and hostile courts make life difficult for potential investors.

The Supreme Court found that security can only be ordered where an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is being adjourned due to challenges to the award in the courts of the country in, or under the law of which, it was made.

In which case, there should not be a distinction between the enforcement of domestic arbitral and international awards in the State where the enforcement is sought, on the base of reciprocity.

However, the third paragraph of recital 12 complicates matters as it provides that where a member state court exercising jurisdiction under the Brussels I (recast) or national law has determined that an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, the court's judgment on the substance of the matter can be recognised or enforced in accordance with Brussels I (recast)(although this is expressed as without prejudice to the competence of member state courts to decide on recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in accorded with the New York Convention which «takes precedence over» Brussels I (recast)-RRB-.

However, even where statutory enforcement regimes like Alberta's Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act ensure procedural certainty for a certain delineated sub-set of international arbitral awards, the unclear procedural status of international arbitral awards, in general, continues to affect international arbitral awards not covered by the respective enforcemenforcement regimes like Alberta's Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act ensure procedural certainty for a certain delineated sub-set of international arbitral awards, the unclear procedural status of international arbitral awards, in general, continues to affect international arbitral awards not covered by the respective enforcemEnforcement of Judgments Act ensure procedural certainty for a certain delineated sub-set of international arbitral awards, the unclear procedural status of international arbitral awards, in general, continues to affect international arbitral awards not covered by the respective enforcementenforcement regime.

This applies only to circumstances where the parties reside in different provinces or if the proposed decision to refuse enforcement or set aside a domestic arbitral award is made on the ground of «violating the public interests».

This dispute highlights the inconsistent approach across Europe towards enforcement of arbitral awards which have been set aside in the jurisdiction where the arbitration was seated.

As EU law is according to Eco-Swiss a public policy ground which requires national courts to review arbitral awards for their compatibility with EU law, this means that any arbitral awards where the arbitration seat is in an EU Member State, or the recognition and enforcement of the award in an EU Member State is sought, can be successfully challenged in front of national EU courts.

In this case, the Court addressed questions of when federal courts can enforce arbitration awards granted outside the U.S.. For a fuller discussion of where arbitral awards can be enforced, see the discussion of «Enforcement and Recognition of Arbitral Awards» in our e-book, International Practice: Topics and Tawards granted outside the U.S.. For a fuller discussion of where arbitral awards can be enforced, see the discussion of «Enforcement and Recognition of Arbitral Awards» in our e-book, International Practice: Topics andarbitral awards can be enforced, see the discussion of «Enforcement and Recognition of Arbitral Awards» in our e-book, International Practice: Topics and Tawards can be enforced, see the discussion of «Enforcement and Recognition of Arbitral Awards» in our e-book, International Practice: Topics andArbitral Awards» in our e-book, International Practice: Topics and TAwards» in our e-book, International Practice: Topics and Trends.

Article 1026 - 9 of the CCP provides that the Ministère Public may serve a notice of opposition to the enforcement of arbitral awards in cases where it considers that such enforcement would be contrary to public interest.

Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and DIFC Courts awards Dubai Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located there.

The ECJ today has held, in a matter of factly manner (I had suspected the Court would be brief), that the enforcement of arbitral awards falls outside the Brussels I - Regulation, where that enforcement by the court of that State, effectively prohibits the party concerned from taking the case to a court in that very Member State.