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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.