Sentences with phrase «enforcement of arbitral awards under»

Parties have brought successful challenges to enforcement of arbitral awards under article V (1)(c) in several jurisdictions on the grounds that the arbitral award addressed a party that was not bound by the arbitration agreement.

Not exact matches

It is quite fascinating to note that the topic I elected to write a thesis on more than 17 years ago remains a topical issue to the extent that a world leading institution such as the IBA has constituted a sub-committee, under the auspices of the IBA Arbitration Committee, to tackle public policy in relation to enforcement of arbitral awards, and the sub-committee issued an excellent report last year on the matter.

With respect to the award of interest, the Hamburg Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to enforcement under article V (1)(c), made on the basis that the arbitral tribunal had awarded more interest than had been claimed, considering that an «arbitral tribunal can in its discretion and on its own initiative award interest and compound interest for the time until the rendition of the award and for the time after the rendition of the award.»

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

By imposing stricter rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, a Contracting State will breach its obligations under the Convention.

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.

The case raises numerous issues relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards against sovereign states, including immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 and the interaction between English proceedings and proceedings in the curial court (Holland).

An overview of the history of the realisation of The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) can be found under «History 1923 - 1958»

She adds that «Nigerian courts are eager to enforce arbitral awards and the regulatory framework under the New York Convention and Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcements) Act largely favours enforcement of foreign awards».

The section features information on the enforcement procedures in various CIS states, a database of court judgements on the enforcements of SCC arbitral awards, e-books about arbitration in Sweden and samples of documents filed in arbitrations under the SCC Rules.

Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 8: grounds for restraining by injunction an arbitration; as well as several leading cases dealing with interim relief in aid of international arbitral proceedings including Mobil Cerro Negor Ltd v Petroleos de Venezuela SA [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 684 (expropriation of Mobil's oil fields in Venezuela; successfully discharged worldwide freezing order for US$ 12 billion under s. 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996); ETI NV v Republic of Bolivia [2009] 1 WLR 665 (CA): (nationalisation of company; successfully discharged a freezing order obtained under s. 25 of the CJJA 1982 and s. 44 of the AA 1996 in aid of an ICSID arbitration); Telenor v Vimpelcom & Altimo Group (pre-arbitration interim relief in S$ 3bn telecommunications shareholder dispute); Yukos Oil v Rosneft (US$ 425m freezing order in support of enforcement of Russian arbitral awards);

The Supreme Court considered whether the English Court, as an enforcing court of a Nigerian arbitral award, was entitled to require a party resisting enforcement to provide security for the money payable under the award as a condition of being entitled to advance a good arguable defence that enforcement should be refused on grounds of English public policy, e.g. because the award was procured by fraud.

Represented a foreign sovereign in regard to recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention of an approximately $ 700 million ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award.

In addition to having been instructed in major arbitrations, such as the Bermudan - based arbitration relating to the reinsurance of Arthur Andersen following the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, and Elektrim SA's long running dispute with Vivendi Universal over Polish telecommunications, he has particular expertise in relation to inter relief applications to the Court in relation to heavy arbitrations such as ETI Euro Telecom V Republic of Bolivia [2008](no pre-emptive relief in aid of an ICSID arbitration); Elektrim SA v Vivendi [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep 693 (s. 68 of AA 1996 and awards obtained by fraud); Elektrim v Vivendi [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 8 (injunction to restrain arbitration continuing) Telenor East Holding II AS v Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd (multi-billion dollar shareholder dispute — interim injunction under s. 44 of the AA 1996); Steadfast v Baker Hughes (s. 9 (3) step in the action preventing a stay in favour of arbitration) and enforcement of arbitral awards (Yukos v Rosneft: US$ 500m and Yukos v Russian Federation US$ 50 billion.

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.

While enforcement, a foreign arbitral award shall, on the application being made to the appropriate court by any party, be enforced by execution by the court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the domestic Court.

However, it has been identified that under the Arbitration Act 1940, the national courts had an extensive supervisory role over the arbitral process and, most importantly, there were problems being faced by arbitration users in relation to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

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.

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-.

Extending the certainty offered under regimes such as the Alberta Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act to all international arbitral awards is not only beneficial because it ensures regulatory consistency, but would also be commercially desirable, helping to avoid costly litigation such as the case at issue here.

Based on the factums submitted to the SCC, the appellant (Yugraneft) is arguing that international arbitral awards should be considered, at least for enforcement purposes, equivalent to foreign judgments, and, as such, should benefit from the 10 - year limitation period under s. 11 of the Alberta Limitations Act.

On the basis of reciprocity, the Republic of Guatemala will apply the above Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made only in the territory of another contract - ing State; and will apply it only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under its national law.

Ecuador, on a basis of reciprocity, will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of another Contracting State only if such awards have been made with respect to differences arising out of legal relationships which are regarded as commercial under Ecuadorian law.

In an important judgment given on Wednesday 25 October 2017, the Supreme Court has laid down important principles for the enforcement of international arbitral awards and specifically for the interception of funds payable under letters of credit

Advising in resisting the enforcement of two arbitral awards concerning a dispute under a shareholders» agreement and an agreement for the commercial development of land in India.

It is submitted that since the cause of action or plea in the petition for enforcement of the arbitral awards is different from what was pleaded or was subject matter of the petition under Section 9, claimant can not be held to be estopped from raising the plea.