UK: Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce ICC Arbitration Award

Last Updated: 23 December 2010
Article by Tony George and Carl Walker

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

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company ('Dallah') from the Court of Appeal's decision that Dallah should be refused leave to enforce an ICC arbitration award against the Government of Pakistan ('the Government') in England. This is the first case to reach the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the New York Convention and provides an interesting analysis of the relationship between arbitral tribunals and the courts and the extent to which it is open to a court to review a tribunal's ruling on its own jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that although an arbitral tribunal has power to rule on its own jurisdiction, this is subject to review by the courts.


The dispute arose out of an agreement between Dallah and Awami Hajj Trust ('the Trust') under which Dallah was to acquire land for the construction of housing near Mecca, which would be leased to the Trust. The Government had established the Trust in 1996 to provide various services to Pakistani citizens participating in the Hajj, and had participated in pre-contractual discussions, but was not named as a party to the agreement. The agreement included a clause referring any disputes to ICC arbitration.

Following the fall of Ms Benazir Bhutto's government in November 1996, the Trust ceased to exist as a legal entity and Dallah commenced arbitration against the Government in May 1998 claiming that the Government, acting on behalf of the Trust, had unlawfully repudiated the agreement. Throughout the proceedings, the Government had denied being a party to any arbitration agreement, had maintained a jurisdictional reservation and had not done anything to submit to the jurisdiction of the tribunal or to waive its sovereign immunity. The ICC tribunal held, however, that the Government was a true party to the agreement concluded between Dallah and the Trust, and was therefore bound by the arbitration clause contained in that agreement. The tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to determine Dallah's claim against the Government and issued an award against the Government in the sum of approximately US$20.5 million.

This appeal arose from steps taken by Dallah to enforce the award against assets of the Government in England. Hitherto, the Government had succeeded in resisting this enforcement on the ground that the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law of the country where the award was made – France, as required by s. 103 of the English Arbitration Act 1996.

So far as relevant, Section 103 of the Act (which reflects Article V(1) of the New York Convention) provides, as follows:

"(1) Recognition or enforcement of a New York Convention award shall not be refused except in the following cases.

(2) Recognition or enforcement of the award may be refused if the person against whom it is invoked proves-

(b) that the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made."

The Key Issues

The key issues before the Supreme Court were:

  1. To what extent was the Court entitled to review the tribunal's ruling that it had jurisdiction to decide the case, considering the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle1;
  2. Whether the Government could establish that it was not a party to the agreement, as a matter of French law;
  3. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction to allow enforcement even if a statutory defence to enforcement was established.

To what extent was the Court entitled to review the tribunal's ruling that it had jurisdiction to decide the case, considering the Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine?

Dallah's primary case was that the only court that could undertake a full examination of the Tribunal's jurisdiction would be a French court on an application to set aside the award for lack of jurisdiction. It was submitted that any enforcing court (other than the court of the seat of the arbitration) should adopt a different approach and should do no more than 'review' the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the precedent question whether there was any arbitration agreement binding on the Government. It was argued that this should be only a limited review, as the Tribunal had power to consider and rule on its own jurisdiction (the Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine), that it did so after full and close examination of the evidence, and that its award on jurisdiction should therefore be given strong evidential effect. The argument followed that the Court should refuse to intervene so long as the Tribunal's conclusions could be regarded on their face as plausible or reasonably supportable.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument, with Lord Mance stating that the correct position could be accurately summarised as follows:

"Under Section 103(2)(b) of the 1996 Act/Article V.1(a) NYC, when the issue is initial consent to arbitration, the Court must determine for itself whether or not the objecting party actually consented. The objecting party has the burden of proof, which it may seek to discharge as it sees fit. In making its determination, the Court may have regard to the reasoning and findings of the alleged arbitral tribunal, if they are helpful, but is neither bound nor restricted by them."

The Supreme Court held that although a tribunal has the power to determine whether it has jurisdiction for its own purposes, a court, whether within the country where the tribunal is located or within a foreign country where an attempt is made to enforce the award, can and must revisit the question of jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal could only have jurisdiction by consent and could not give itself jurisdiction if there was no relevant consent under the applicable law.

Whether the Government could establish that it was not a party to the agreement, as a matter of French law?

The Supreme Court went on to reject Dallah's argument that the Government was a party to the agreement by reason of the parties' common intention that it should be such. In analysing this issue, the Supreme Court took the view that the facts that the Government (a) was itself involved in the contractual negotiations between Dallah and the Trust, (b) was named in the original Memorandum of Understanding and (c) remained interested throughout the project, did not of themselves mean that the Government, or Dallah, intended that the Government should be party to the agreement.

Lord Mance considered that the structure of the agreement made it clear that the Government was deliberately distancing itself from any direct contractual involvement. In reaching this conclusion, his Lordship noted that the Government's only role under the agreement was to guarantee the Trust's loan obligations and to receive a counter-guarantee from the Trust and its trustee bank. The Court identified several other factors which led to the conclusion that there was no common intention, including:

  1. Dallah was advised throughout the transaction by a leading firm of lawyers in Pakistan which was responsible for the drafts of both the Memorandum of Understanding between Dallah and the Government and for the actual agreement between Dallah and the Trust. The Court considered that the lawyers must have well understood the difference between an agreement with a state entity and an agreement with the state itself;
  2. There was a clear change in the proposed transaction between the time of the Memorandum of Understanding and the time of the actual agreement. It changed from an agreement with the Government to an agreement with the Trust;
  3. The Trust was a body corporate capable of holding property in its own right and capable of suing and being sued.

Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction to allow enforcement even if a statutory defence to enforcement was established?

Dallah's fallback argument was that the word 'may' in s. 103(2) of the 1996 Act ("recognition and enforcement of the Award may be refused") gave the court a discretion to allow an award to be enforced even in circumstances where the court had concluded that there was no agreement to arbitrate. The Supreme Court had little hesitation in rejecting this argument, with Lord Mance stating that:

"Absent some fresh circumstance such as another agreement or an estoppel, it would be a remarkable state of affairs if the word 'may' enabled a court to enforce or recognise an award which it found to have been made without jurisdiction, under whatever law it held ought to be recognised and applied to determine that issue."


Whilst it is a rare occurrence for an English court to refuse to acknowledge an international arbitration award, it seems unsurprising that the Supreme Court, and indeed the lower courts, did not allow enforcement in this case, given that the Government had clearly not consented to be bound by any arbitration agreement and that the arbitration agreement was not valid as a matter of French law.


1 The principle whereby an arbitration tribunal has power to consider and rule on its own jurisdiction.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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

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

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
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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