In a recent Supreme Court case, the court examined whether the first instance judge as was the allegation of the appellants, erroneously concluded that the requirements under Article IV(1)(a) were not fulfilled. Particularly the first instance court stated that a duly authenticated original has not been submitted as the authenticity of the signatures and the seal of the arbitral tribunal had not been certified. In fact, what the appellants submitted was as they argued a duly authenticated original of the arbitral award since it bore the tribunals seal and the signature of the arbitrators.
The Supreme Court on the other hand reversed the decision of the First Instance Court relying amongst others on the case of Antony Lombard-Knight ν Rainstorm Pictures Inc (2014) EWCA Civ 356, in which the court held that an arbitral award is authentic when the document includes the original signatures of the arbitrators. Therefore, the conclusion of the Supreme Court was that since the document had the original signatures of the arbitrators and the official seal, no further certification was needed. Hence there was no room for challenging the validity of the award's authenticity.
This case serves as a relaxation from the stringent examination to be put on the requirements imposed by Article IV which as stated in the well-known case of Bristol Business Corporation v Besuno Ltd (2011) are imperative and substantial and need to be strictly satisfied.
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.