UK: International Arbitration - Supreme Court Ruling On The Scope Of Review Upon Enforcement

Last Updated: 8 November 2010
Article by Ben Holland and Guy Pendell

The Supreme Court of the UK has issued its first decision concerning international arbitration. The case concerned the interpretation of section 103(2) of the English Arbitration Act 1996, which restates Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention.  It grants the court the power to refuse to enforce an international arbitration award where there was no valid arbitration agreement.  In the case under scrutiny, Dallah v Pakistan, Pakistan tried to resist enforcement of an ICC award made against it by a prominent three-member international arbitration tribunal on the ground that it did not sign the arbitration agreement.  Both the first instance judge and the Court of Appeal found that the arbitral tribunal's determination that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, on the basis that Pakistan had submitted to arbitration, could not be upheld and refused to enforce the award (as previously reported – see  Law-Now on 16 September  and Law-Now on 7 August).

In a judgment handed down today the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.  In doing so, it held that no arbitration agreement existed to which Pakistan was a party and that there were no other grounds for enforcing the award.

To view the article in full, please see below:



Full Article

The Supreme Court of the UK has issued its first decision concerning international arbitration. The case concerned the interpretation of section 103(2) of the English Arbitration Act 1996, which restates Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention. It grants the court the power to refuse to enforce an international arbitration award where there was no valid arbitration agreement. In the case under scrutiny, Dallah v Pakistan, Pakistan tried to resist enforcement of an ICC award made against it by a prominent three-member international arbitration tribunal on the ground that it did not sign the arbitration agreement. Both the first instance judge and the Court of Appeal found that the arbitral tribunal's determination that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, on the basis that Pakistan had submitted to arbitration, could not be upheld and refused to enforce the award (as previously reported – see Law-Now on 16 September and Law-Now on 7 August).

In a judgment handed down today the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. In doing so, it held that no arbitration agreement existed to which Pakistan was a party and that there were no other grounds for enforcing the award.

Background

Dallah, a Saudi company which provides accommodation and other services to pilgrims in Mecca, entered into negotiations with the Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan ("GoP") in order to provide accommodation to Pakistani pilgrims undertaking the Hajj. The negotiations culminated in an agreement signed by Dallah and a body corporate established by the GoP, the Awami Hajj Trust (the "Trust"). Following a change of government in Pakistan in 1996, the GoP brought Dallah before the Pakistani courts seeking a declaration that Dallah had repudiated the agreement. In response, Dallah instigated ICC arbitration proceedings in Paris pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. At this time, the Trust had ceased to exist and Dallah brought the arbitration proceedings against the GoP, which declined to take part in the arbitration proceedings. In a first partial award on jurisdiction, the arbitral tribunal applying "transnational principles" held that the GoP was bound by the arbitration clause and eventually awarded $20m to Dallah in a final award.

When Dallah sought to enforce the award in England, the GoP successfully agreed before the first instance that it (as opposed to the Trust) had not been a party to the arbitration agreement and that enforcement of the award should therefore be resisted pursuant to Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention, as restated in section 103(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996. Section 103(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act provides that enforcement may be refused if the party against whom it is invoked "proves" that the arbitration agreement was not valid, Aikens J considered that "If a party has to prove a matter, that must mean, in the context of English civil proceedings, prove the existence of the relevant matters on a balance of probabilities".

The Court of Appeal upheld his judgment and ruled that:

  • Under section 103(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act, the judge had to conduct a full re-hearing of the matter and not a simple review of the tribunal's decision on its own jurisdiction;
  • The law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement was French law (substantive rules) as it was the law of the seat of arbitration;
  • Applying French law, the GoP was not a party to the arbitration agreement and the award was not enforceable;
  • The discretion given to the judge in Article V is a narrow one and should certainly not be exercised where the person against whom the award is invoked was not party to the arbitration agreement; and
  • The fact that the GoP did not challenge the award before the courts of the seat does not amount to an issue estoppel.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal. On the proper application of French law (as the law of the country where the award was made) the GoP was not a party to the arbitration agreement and was not bound by it. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court was unwilling to exercise its discretion under Article V(1) and section 103(2) to enforce or recognise the award, which it found to have been made without jurisdiction. Accordingly, Dallah's appeal was dismissed and its attempt to enforce its award against assets in the UK failed.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered the following issues:

  • The relevance of the fact that the arbitral tribunal had itself ruled affirmatively on the issue of its own jurisdiction, based on its view that the GoP (not jus the Trust) had construed to arbitrate;
  • Whether the GoP could establish, applying French law principles, that it was not a party to the arbitration agreement; and
  • The nature and existence of any discretion to be found in Article V(1) and section 103(2), which provide that "recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused" (emphasis added) if the arbitration agreement is proved to be invalid.

In respect of the first of these issues, it was well understood that a tribunal in an international arbitration has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. But it did not follow that this should operate to exclude that issue from being re-examined when the award comes to be enforced. In the circumstances, Article V safeguarded the fundamental right of a party which had not agreed to arbitration to object to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The Supreme Court saw no basis for departing from the plain language of Article V(1)(a) as incorporated by section 103(2)(b), which entitled and bound the Supreme Court to revisit the tribunal's decision on jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court therefore had to determine the second issue, namely whether the GoP could prove that it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Although the burden of proof was on the GoP, this was not an insurmountable obstacle. As explained by Lord Mance in his leading judgment, "Dallah starts with advantage of service, it does not start fifteen or thirty love up." In fact, applying French law principles, there was no common intention on the part of the GoP to be a party to the arbitration agreement. The whole structure of the agreement between Dallah and the Trust was such as to distance the GoP from any direct contractual involvement. The GoP's only role was to guarantee the Trust's obligations. On the evidence before it, the Supreme Court held that the GoP was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

The final issue was whether, even if the GoP was not bound by the arbitration agreement, the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion under Article V(1) and section 103(2) to enforce the award anyway. Dallah submitted that even if the GoP could prove that it was not bound by the agreement, the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion to enforce the award. The Supreme Court refused to do this, saying that, in the absence of some fresh circumstance such as another agreement, it would be remarkable if the word "may" in Article V(10 and section 103(2) enabled a court to recognise or enforce an award which it found to have been made without jurisdiction.

Comment

This decision supports one of the fundamental principles enshrined in the New York Convention: that a party is entitled to oppose the enforcement of an award on the grounds that it is not based on a valid agreement to arbitrate. The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld that principle.

Nevertheless, the practical result of Dallah has serious consequences for international arbitration users: issues of jurisdiction determined by a prestigious three-member international arbitral tribunal were found to be subject to a full re-hearing of the evidence by a single national court judge. In addition, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have conducted appeals based on the legal merits of that single judge's decision, without the benefit of hearing the factual evidence. The parties in Dallah have also been subject to four jurisdictional hearings on the same factual issue, one before the tribunal and three before the English courts, with obvious cost implications for speedy and efficient resolution of jurisdictional issues.

None of this would have occurred had the transaction documents been structured differently. Parties that are entering into transactions that might require enforcement of arbitral awards in England and Wales should think carefully about transactional structure issues. In particular, where a third party is using a special purpose vehicle it will be important to ensure that there is a performance guarantee, or some other mechanism, from the third party containing a separate, valid, arbitration agreement.

Further reading:

Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 03/11/2010.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions