Comparative Guides
Welcome to Mondaq Comparative Guides - your comparative global Q&A guide.
Our Comparative Guides provide an overview of some of the key points of law and practice and allow you to compare regulatory environments and laws across multiple jurisdictions.
Start by selecting your Topic of interest below. Then choose your Regions and finally refine the exact Subjects you are seeking clarity on to view detailed analysis provided by our carefully selected internationally recognised experts.
Results: 4 Answers
International Arbitration
13.
Enforcement of awards
13.1
Are awards enforced in your jurisdiction? Under what procedure?
 
UK
Yes, the English courts have a pro-enforcement stance and both domestic and foreign arbitral awards can be enforced in the English courts. As a signatory to the New York Convention, the courts recognise foreign arbitration awards made in the territory of a state that is a party to the New York Convention in accordance with Section 101 of the Arbitration Act; but awards made in the territory of non-signatory states may also be enforced.

The party seeking to enforce the award will apply to the court to enter a judgment or order of the court on the same terms as the award (under Section 66 or 101 of the act (for awards made in the territory of another state which is a party to the New York Convention 1958)). A party may also be able to enforce an arbitral award at common law. In either case, the courts will refrain from examining the merits of the award.

Enforcement of the award can then take place using all means available to a court under English law, such as enforcement against goods or assets or third-party debt orders.

Where an award has been set aside by the courts in the seat of arbitration, the English courts have discretion as to whether to enforce such an award (Section 103(2)(f); Yukos Capital SARL v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company [2014] EWHC 2188 (Comm)). The English courts will question a foreign court’s decision on its own law and/or to undermine a foreign court’s judgment for bias or unfairness where there is compelling evidence (Malicorp Ltd v Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt [2015] EWHC 361 (Comm)).

For more information about this answer please contact: Craig Tevendale from Herbert Smith Freehills