As is well known, Section 1782(a) provides that a “the district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal”.

The applicability of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to international arbitration has generated an interesting debate, especially on this blog (see lastly G. Born’s post, L. Reed’s post, E. Triantafilou’s post, adde, Y. Lahlou, l’applicabilité de l’article 28 USC 1782 à l’arbitrage commercial international, Gaz. Pal., 2009-3). The debate is essentially concerned with the question whether an international arbitral tribunal constitutes a “foreign tribunal” for purposes of § 1782 (see the recent: In re Application of Chevron, 2010 WL 1801526, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2010 and Roger Alford’s blog). Conflicting solutions on this issue have been rendered in the United States (against the application of § 1782 to international arbitration see e.g.: National Broadcasting Co. Inc and NBC Europe v. Bear Steans & Co., Inc et al, 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999); El Paso Corp. v. La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica del Rio Lempa No 08-20771, 2009 US App. Lexis 17596 (5th Cir. Aug. 6 2009); In re Arbitration in London, England, No. 09-C-3092, 2009 US Dist. Lexis 49827. For the application of § 1782 to international arbitration see e.g. In re Oxus Gold plc, MISC 06-82-GEB, 2007 WL 1037387 (D.N.J. April 2,2001), In re Roz Trading Ltd, 469 F. Supp. 2d 1226; In re Hallmark Capital Corp., 534 F Supp. 2d 951 (D. Minn. 2007), Comisión Ejecutiva, Hidroeléctrica del Río Lempa v. Nejapa Power Co., LLC, No. 08-135, 2008 WL 4809035, at *1 (D. Del. Oct. 14 2008).

A related, and somewhat minor question, has however attracted little interest, and that is whether costs incurred by the party to an arbitration procedure in court proceedings based on § 1782 (“the Discovery costs”) may be treated as costs of the arbitration and allocated by the arbitral tribunal. The question will be relevant to the parties since, as it is known, costs are not refunded to the prevailing party in the context of Discovery court proceedings in the United States.

The critical issue is whether the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to allocate Discovery costs as costs of the arbitration.
The first element of answer may be found in the arbitration agreement.
Proceedings related to a Discovery application in aid of the arbitration may well be considered as a dispute arising out or relating to the underlying contract. Hence, there should not be any difficulty to admit that, in principle, Discovery applications are related to the contract. As a consequence, a broadly formulated arbitration clause (such as a clause worded as follows “all disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled through arbitration by one or more arbitrators”) may well be construed as applying to Discovery costs. This is not the end of the story, however.

A first argument against the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to apportion Discovery costs is that applications for Discovery in aid of the arbitration applications usually involve third parties in possession of the evidence sought. Such circumstance, however, should not be relevant as long as the parties in dispute in the arbitration are also parties to the Discovery court proceedings.
Another possible objection relates to the concept of “costs of the arbitration”.

In the context of UNCITRAL or institutional arbitration, it should be seen whether the applicable arbitration rules permit to treat such costs as costs of the arbitration.

It is for example doubtful that, under Article 38 of the 1976 UNCITRAL rules, Discovery costs can be treated as costs of the arbitration. Article 38 provides that “the term ‘costs’ includes only: (a) the fees of the arbitral tribunal to be stated separately as to each arbitrator and to be fixed by the tribunal itself in accordance with article 39; (b) the travel and other expenses incurred by the arbitrators; (c) the costs of expert advice and of other assistance required by the arbitral tribunal; (d) The travail and other expenses of witness to the extent such expenses are approved by the arbitral tribunal; (e) the costs for legal representation and assistance of the successful party if such costs were claimed during the arbitral proceedings, and only to the extent that the arbitral tribunal determines that the amount of such costs is reasonable; (f) Any fees and expenses of the appointing authority as well as the expenses of the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague”.

The new 2010 UNCITRAL rules, however, include a new wording of § (e) below. The new Article 40 (e) of the Rules now provides that costs include “the legal and other costs incurred by the parties in relation to the arbitration to the extent that the arbitral tribunal determines that the amount of such costs is reasonable”. Arguably, Discovery costs are costs incurred “in relation to the arbitration”. As a consequence, Discovery costs would be treated as costs of the arbitration.

The ICC rules, with respect to costs, provide in Article 31(3) that “The final Award shall fix the costs of the arbitration and decide which of the parties shall bear them or in what proportion they shall be borne by the parties”. Article 31(1) also provides that the costs of the arbitration include the “reasonable legal and other costs incurred by the parties for the arbitration”. Such a provision does not seem to encompass costs incurred “in relation” to the arbitration. It is generally admitted, however, that arbitrators have wide discretion in apportioning costs. Whether such discretion could be used to allocate Discovery costs remains to be seen.
The LCIA rules confer to an arbitral tribunal the power to “order in its award that all or part of the legal or other costs incurred by a party be paid by another party” (Article 28.3). However, this provision seems to relate to the costs incurred in the arbitration, and would thus not apply to costs incurred in court proceedings. The ICDR rules refer in Article 31 to “the costs of arbitration”. Although the rules also provide for a non-exhaustive list of what “may” be included as such costs, , the concept of costs of arbitration is arguably not equivalent to that of costs incurred “in relation to” the arbitration. The same observation applies with respect to Article 38 of the Swiss Rules.

Another possible ground to recover Discovery costs could be as damages for breach of the arbitration agreement. It is unlikely that the lex arbitri would prevent a party from seeking Discovery in aid of the arbitration, but it may well be that the arbitral tribunal enjoined the party from doing so or from pursuing an application made without the tribunal’s leave.

A U.S. court has, in this respect, decided that § 1782 application suppose the consent of the arbitral tribunal (see In re Bacock Borsig AG, 583 F. Supp. 2d a 233 (D. Mass. 2008)). Such principle is healthy as Discovery applications – as they include leave to depose witnesses and suppose broad discovery – are likely to be inconsistent with the tribunal’s procedural directions. In such a scenario, an application made in disregard of the tribunal’s directions or order would constitute a breach of the arbitration agreement insofar as the arbitration agreement obliges the parties to cooperate in good faith to the proceedings. There should be no valid reason why such a breach could not give rise to damages.

Alexis Mourre/Alexandre Vagenheim

In a decision dated 8 December 2009, published on 13 June 2010 (case 4A_446/2009, published as 136 III 107), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that persons acting as board of directors of a company that subsequently became insolvent cannot rely on an arbitration clause contained in the articles of association of that insolvent company for liability claims filed against them by the insolvent company’s creditors.

Background

The articles of association of corporation Y (”Y”) contain an arbitration clause which applies in case of a dispute between Y and its members of the board of directors or its shareholders. On 5 January 2004, Y was declared insolvent. In March 2007, Y’s shareholder and creditor A (”A”) filed a liability claim before the commercial court of canton of Bern requesting that the members of Y’s board of directors be ordered to pay CHF 1m. The respondent board member X (”X”), in turn, raised a plea of arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in Y’s articles of association.

On 7 July 2009, the commercial court of canton of Bern decided that the arbitration clause did not include the dispute at hand and that the court had jurisdiction over the matter. Subsequently, X filed an appeal against the commercial court’s decision before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

Decision

The Federal Supreme Court dismissed X’s appeal and confirmed the commercial court’s holding that the arbitration clause did not apply. It held that by filing a liability claim against Y’s board members, A was not enforcing the rights of Y against its board members, but was enforcing the rights of Y’s creditors. For this reason, a board member could not bring forward all defenses it could have brought forward against a claim filed by Y itself. He could only bring forward the defenses he had against Y’s creditors.

The Supreme Court held that the plea of arbitration was not a defense X could bring forward against Y’s creditors. It was a defense X could only bring forward against a claim filed by Y itself. If such a defense could be brought forward against Y’s creditors, there would be a risk that, due to an arbitration clause in the articles of association, the enforcement of liability claims of creditors could be hindered. Since Y’s creditors had no influence on the content of the articles of association, they were not bound by the arbitration clause contained therein.

Comment

Liability claims against members of the board of directors can generally, in domestic and in international cases, be submitted to arbitration. This, however, is only the case where the arbitration clause satisfies the form requirements and where, e.g., the shareholders or board members – later a party to the dispute – validly consent to the respective arbitration clause. The consent requirement can be satisfied if a shareholder, when purchasing the company’s shares, or a member of the board, when accepting the appointment, at least by way of referral to the arbitration clause in the articles of arbitration consent to such arbitration clause. On the contrary, an arbitration clause is neither binding on those shareholders who purchased their shares prior to inclusion of the arbitration clause in the articles of association nor is it binding on the company’s creditors. With respect to the latter, it is established in legal literature that an arbitration clause is in particular not binding in the case of an insolvent company, where a creditor files a liability claim against the board members on behalf of all creditors of an insolvent company. The present case, published in the official Federal Supreme Court Case Reporter, confirms the existing view.

Georg von Segesser / Petra Rihar

In two decisions both dated 11 January 2010, published on 16 April 2010 (cases 4A_256/2009 and 4A_258/2009), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dismissed two appeals regarding the irregular constitution of an arbitral tribunal by stating that the complainant failed to sufficiently substantiate his allegations.

Background

In 2006, two ICC arbitrations were initiated. They had the same factual background, but were based on different (yet interconnected) agreements. In the first arbitration (dealt with in the decision 4A_256/2009), AY (”AY”), a company incorporated under the laws of the Czech republic, initiated an arbitration against X (”X”), a Czech citizen. In the second arbitration (dealt with in the decision 4A_258/2009), X (Respondent in the first arbitration) initiated an arbitration against Y (”Y”), a Czech citizen, sole owner of AY (Claimant in the first arbitration).

In both arbitrations, the arbitral tribunal was composed of arbitrator Q (”Q”) (nominated by X), arbitrator P (”P”) (nominated by AY in the first arbitration and by Y in the second) and of the Chairman O (”O”) (nominated by the co-arbitrators). The tribunal decided not to consolidate the proceedings.

After the tribunal rendered the awards, X appealed before the Federal Supreme Court against both awards. In both proceedings, X argued that P and O were biased and that, therefore, there was no guarantee that the arbitral tribunal was impartial and independent of the parties.

Decision

The Federal Supreme Court dismissed both appeals.

As to P’s lack of independence, X argued that, end of Mai 2007, the Czech media reported that P had been nominated as arbitrator by Y or by persons connected with Y in approximately ten different arbitration proceedings. In fact, P had become the “house arbitrator” (”Hausschiedsrichter”) of Y. With respect to two (out of ten) proceedings, X personally knew of such nominations as he was acquainted with the proceedings. X further argued that in one further ICC arbitration between AY and a certain Mr. Z, P’s nomination had not been confirmed.

X had challenged P’s nomination as co-arbitrator in both arbitrations for lack of independence before the ICC Secretariat pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Rules. The ICC Court nevertheless confirmed P’s nomination without stating the grounds for dismissal of the challenge submitted by X.

The Federal Supreme Court held that X’s appeal was insufficiently substantiated and that X failed to sufficiently show circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence of P. X’s assertion that P had “recently” been nominated in numerous cases of Y or by persons connected with Y was based solely on a newspaper article of 20 May 2007 which was too vague to serve as evidence in an evidentiary hearing purposed to clarify whether or not X’s assertion was true. Whether or not P lacked independence could thus not be decided based on said article. The Federal Supreme Court continued that X should have named the different arbitrations proceedings by specifying the timing and the involved parties, by stating which party had appointed P and by showing what the relationship of that party to Y or to persons connected to Y was. Also the fact that P’s nomination in another ICC arbitration between AY and a certain Mr Z had not been confirmed did not lead to any conclusions as to P’s independence in these proceedings the Federal Supreme Court concluded.

As to O’s lack of independence, X brought forward that, end of October 2008, at the occasion of an arbitration in London between a trust established by X and a company B, X learned of several interconnections of O with companies (where O served as a member of the board of directors) and with persons who were connected to or closely worked with Y. In particular, X argued that O was a member of the board of directors of a company C collecting for Y (or one of the companies controlled by Y) one of the largest claims in the Czech Republic and that said company was receiving instructions from Y. To substantiate his allegations X submitted e-mails showing the described interconnections and dependencies.

The Federal Supreme Court held that X’s arguments were insufficient to show O’s lack of independence. In particular, X had not shown to what extent the connection of the company C to Y was supposed to influence O’s impartiality and independence in these proceedings. Rather, the Federal Supreme Court held, the cooperation described by X did not go beyond an “ordinary business relationship”.

Comment

Switzerland is known as an arbitration friendly place among others because the Federal Supreme Court only rarely interferes with the work of the arbitral tribunals. In these two cases, however, the commentators cannot escape the impression that the Federal Supreme Court circumvented the actual problem by stating that the complainant did not sufficiently substantiate his allegations. It seems somehow unsatisfactory to require a strict proof regarding the question of the number and time frame of previous appointments of an arbitrator by the same party or an affiliate of it . Such proof will not be possible for the complainant. For this reason, at least if it refers to past appointments, the exact fact should be established before the course of the ICC confirmation procedure. It should also be kept in mind that, to the knowledge of the authors, situations of “house arbitrator” do exist which is sometimes used as an argument against arbitration as a method of dispute resolution.

Georg von Segesser / Petra Rihar

In a decision dated 11 February 2010, published on 29 March 2010 (case 4A_444/2009), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a tribunal’s decision that it had jurisdiction over a request for declaration that damages are owed due to the violation of an arbitration clause. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it had not been filed in a timely manner. However, it also held that the tribunal’s declaratory judgment concerning damages for breach of an arbitration clause did not violate Swiss public policy.

Background

On 1/22 December 2004, a Swiss manufacturer of pharmaceutical products (”Manufacturer”) and an Israeli distributor of such products (”Distributor”) entered into an exclusive distributorship agreement (”Agreement”) containing an arbitration clause. On 30 Mai 2006, after having terminated the Agreement, the Manufacturer initiated arbitration proceedings in Switzerland against the Distributor requesting payment of unpaid bills and of penalties. On 20 September 2006, the Distributor filed a claim against the Manufacturer before the district court in Tel Aviv-Jaffa requesting payment based on its claim for goodwill.

Before the district court in Tel Aviv-Jaffa, the Manufacturer requested that the proceedings be suspended due to the pending arbitration concerning identical parties and claims. Before the arbitral tribunal, on 21 June 2007, the Manufacturer requested, among others, a payment of CHF 100′000 arguing that the Distributor, by filing a claim before the district court in Tel Aviv-Jaffa, violated the arbitration clause. As to the violation of the arbitration clause, the Manufacturer later amended its prayer for relief and requested that the arbitral tribunal declare that the Distributor, due to this violation of the arbitration clause, owed the Manufacturer a compensation for damages suffered (Manufacturer’s request no. 4). The Distributor requested, among others, that the tribunal deny its jurisdiction with respect to the Manufacturer’s request no. 4.

On 19 November 2008, in a Partial and Interim Award, the arbitral tribunal declared that it had jurisdiction with respect to Manufacturer’s request no. 4. No appeal was filed against this decision. On 3 August 2009, in a Second Partial and Interim Award, the arbitral tribunal, among others, confirmed its jurisdiction with respect to Manufacturer’s request no. 4. It further held that the Distributor had “breached the Arbitration Clause” contained in the Agreement “by filing its claim for goodwill in Israel on 20 September 2006″ and that the Distributor is liable to the Manufacturer for damages “incurred as a result of this breach”, provided that the Manufacturer, in later arbitral proceedings, can establish the remaining elements of its claim under Article 97 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

The Distributor appealed against the decision of the arbitral tribunal before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

Decision

Before the Federal Supreme Court, the Distributor argued several reasons for setting aside the decision of the arbitral tribunal. As to the Manufacturer’s request no. 4, the Distributor argued before the Supreme Court that (i) the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction and that (ii) it violated Swiss public policy as it dealt with the request for declaratory judgment although the Manufacturer did not show that it had legally relevant interest in such declaratory judgment and, (iii) as it denied the Distributor’s right to address a constitutionally guaranteed state court with its claim.

As to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal regarding the Manufacturer’s request no. 4, the Federal Supreme Court held that the arbitral tribunal’s decision of 19 November 2008, where the arbitral tribunal declared that it had jurisdiction with respect to Manufacturer’s request no. 4, had not been appealed. The Distributor had filed an appeal only against the tribunal’s decision of 3 August 2009, however in this latter decision the tribunal only confirmed its respective decision of 19 November 2008 without deciding the issue of jurisdiction anew. The Distributor should have – but has not – appealed against the decision of 19 November 2008 in order to dispute the tribunal’s jurisdiction regarding the Manufacturer’s request no. 4. The Federal Supreme Court further held that the Distributor should have shown that the issue of violation of the arbitration clause is not covered by the arbitration clause itself and therefore the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide that issue. Instead, according to the Federal Supreme Court, the Distributor mixed the issue of the violation of the arbitration clause and of the jurisdiction over the Distributor’s goodwill claim.

The Distributor’s further argument that an arbitral tribunal may not influence the state court’s decision on costs of the proceedings and, in particular, may not punish a party for addressing a state court with its claims, also failed as the tribunal had only decided on its own jurisdiction (and not the jurisdiction of the state court) and did not try to influence the state court’s decision on costs. The Federal Supreme Court held that awarding the counterparty damages for the violation of the arbitration clause is a decision in substance and has nothing to do with the issue of jurisdiction. It could thus not be brought before the Federal Supreme Court.

As to the Distributor’s argument that the tribunal violated Swiss public policy in deciding over the request no. 4, the Federal Supreme Court held that the Distributor was right in alleging that, where Swiss law is applicable, according to the rules developed by Swiss state courts, the admissibility of a request for declaratory relief must be determined in accordance with Swiss law. However, since neither the requirements of Swiss law that need to be met for a request for a declaratory relief to be admissible before Swiss state courts nor the question of which requirements must be applied by an international arbitral tribunal constitute Swiss public policy, the Supreme Court denied to deal with Distributor’s argument that the arbitral tribunal did not properly apply said requirements.

The Distributor also argued that the tribunal violated Swiss public policy because it denied the Distributor’s right to address a constitutionally guaranteed state court with its claim. Here, the Federal Supreme Court held that with respect to arbitrable claims the parties are free to exclude the state court jurisdiction by entering into an arbitration clause. Since the Distributor and the Manufacturer validly concluded the arbitration clause, the exclusion of the state court jurisdiction was binding and the tribunal did not violate the public policy by deciding Manufacturer’s request no. 4.

Comment

With respect to the issue of jurisdiction, this decision clearly shows the importance of a timely complaint against an interlocutory award. Article 190 para. 3 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (”PILA”), which states that the time limit for lodging an appeal shall commence when the interlocutory award is communicated, does not only constitute a party’s right but also a party’s duty to appeal in a timely manner.

A further interesting issue in this case is the issue of claims for damages based on the fact that one party has, in breach of the arbitration agreement, filed a claim in another court. Although the Federal Supreme Court did not have to address this issue because of late filing of the appeal, it stated obiter dictum that an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction for such claims. Furthermore, regarding the merits of the damage claim, it rejected the ordre public violation claim which was based mainly on the fact that the Israeli courts had accepted their jurisdiction and thus no violation of the arbitration clause could be perceived. This decision might deter parties in arbitration proceedings with seat in Switzerland to file parallel proceedings before state courts.

As to the question of which rules apply to the admissibility of declaratory relief in international arbitration (since such issue does not pertain to the public policy), the Federal Supreme Court left such question unanswered. The following comments, however, are noteworthy:

In the Swiss legal literature it is disputed whether the test for admissibility of declaratory relief pertains to the procedure or to the substance (merits) of the case. If this question is considered a procedural issue, there is some uncertainty for the users of arbitration what test (if any) applies (since the procedural rules at the seat of the arbitral tribunal do not apply automatically). If it is considered a substantive issue, under Swiss law the situation is as follows: Prayers for declaratory relief are limited to seeking a declaration on the existence or non-existence of a certain legal relationship or on the legal consequences of such legal relationship based on certain facts. Where a party is in a position to request specific performance of duties arising from the same legal relationship or payment of a certain amount of money, a request for declaratory relief is inadmissible and must be dismissed without prejudice. More specifically, where a request for specific performance is possible, the party seeking merely a declaratory relief lacks the “legally relevant interest” in such declaratory relief because the uncertainty pertaining to the legal relationship between the parties can be eliminated by way of the performance request and therefore such performance request is a valid option for obtaining an enforceable judgment granting an affirmative relief. Only where the request for performance is not possible and the uncertainty regarding the legal relationship between the parties can only be eliminated by way of a declaratory judgment, an interest in a declaratory judgment is worthy of protection under Swiss law.

Georg von Segesser / Petra Rihar

This year’s ICCA Congress in Rio de Janeiro not only confirmed that nobody knows to party better than cariocas, but also served as an impressive reminder of the increasing pro-arbitration approach of Brazilian courts, the remarkable growth in the number of arbitration proceedings in Brazil and the high sophistication of the Brazilian arbitration bar.

Yet less than two weeks after the ICCA Congress concluded, a court in São Paulo issued an injunction ordering a sitting ICC arbitration tribunal to widen the scope of the expert evidence it was considering. The underlying dispute arose out of the construction of the “Yellow Line,” a new subway line in the city of São Paulo. In order to timely complete the construction, the subway operator, Companhia do Metropolitano de São Paulo, known simply as “Metrô,” and the consortium constructing the new subway line, Consórcio Via Amarela, agreed to change the tunneling method, which resulted in additional costs. A dispute arose as to which party had to cover these costs. After a Dispute Avoidance Board recommended that Metrô compensate Via Amarela for the additional costs, Metrô initiated an ICC arbitration. The three-member ICC tribunal, seated in São Paulo and chaired by Brazilian arbitrator Carlos Alberto Carmona, issued a partial award in June 2009 holding that Via Amarela was entitled to be compensated for the additional costs and that the quantum of compensation would be fixed in the second phase of the arbitration by an accountant.

Metrô subsequently requested that the quantum be determined by engineering experts. After the tribunal rejected the request, Metrô initiated proceedings before São Paulo courts to set aside the partial award. In addition, Metro sought a writ of mandamus (“mandado de segurança”) ordering the tribunal to accept engineering evidence.

On 7 June 2010, the São Paulo Tribunal de Justiça issued a writ of mandamus ordering the ICC tribunal to consider the engineering expert evidence, which in the court’s view was a more reliable means of establishing the compensation amount. At least two aspects of the court’s order are worth noting here. First, the judge interfered in the ongoing arbitration proceedings by reviewing the tribunal’s decision not to consider the engineering expert evidence and concluding that in doing so, the tribunal had violated the principles of “reasonableness” and public policy. In issuing the writ, the judge not only violated the Brazilian Arbitration Act and the New York Convention, but also ignored a number of strong precedents by Brazilian courts confirming the autonomy of arbitration proceedings. It goes without saying that due process and public policy arguments, whatever their merits in this case, can only be raised in annulment proceedings.

Second, the use of a mandado de segurança as a procedural tool to interfere in arbitration proceedings is highly questionable and reminiscent of the use of amparos in some other Latin American jurisdictions. Under Brazilian law a court may issue such a writ to protect a “clear and perfect” (“liquido e certo”) right, whenever the party responsible for the illegal actions or abuse of power is a public official or an agent of a corporate legal entity exercising Government functions. The judge reasoned that arbitrators should by analogy be regarded as public officials, and hence be subject to a writ of mandamus, because arbitration involved the “delegation of the jurisdiction by the State.” However, to equate arbitrators with public officials not only appears to be mistaken, but would also open the floodgates for further judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings.

The decision is troubling to many because it was issued by a court in São Paulo, which, together with Rio de Janeiro, serves as seat for the great majority of arbitrations in Brazil and has been building a reputation as a seat for international arbitrations. It therefore does not surprise that the court’s anti-arbitration injunction has caught international attention and has been reported in the Global Arbitration Review.

Yet the import of this decision should not be exaggerated. Since the adoption of the 1996 Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s December 2001 decision confirming the constitutionality of the provision in the Arbitration Act regarding the specific performance of the arbitration clause, courts in Brazil have increasingly adopted a pro-arbitration approach. Anti-arbitration injunctions have remained the exception rather than the norm. At the same time, Brazilian courts have shown no reluctance to grant emergency conservatory measures in support of arbitration proceedings. As a result, the number of arbitrations in Brazil has increased drastically.

The attention raised by the occasional anomalous court decision, such as the writ of mandamus in Metrô v. Consórcio Via Amarela, is more likely to strengthen than weaken the pro-arbitration approach of Brazilian courts, because such decisions engender a healthy debate about important arbitration issues within the judicial community. Such anomalous decisions further provide higher courts with the opportunity to rule on appeal on important arbitration issues thereby adding to and strengthening their pro-arbitration jurisprudence. At the same time, they highlight the importance of the continued need to educate lower-level judges about arbitration.

On 30 June 2010 Via Amarelo obtained a suspension of the effect of the injunction pending a decision on the appeal. It is likely that the injunction will be overturned on appeal and that Brasil will have yet another important pro-arbitration precedent.

Dietmar W. Prager, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

The arbitrability of a dispute is not generally limited to private law. In many countries, including Germany and Switzerland, it is admitted that arbitration can also bear on claims derived from public law, and in particular on rights conferred upon by contracts subject to administrative law. Arbitrability of such disputes may however be more problematic in countries, like France, where the administrative jurisdiction plays an important role in the judicial system alongside with civil courts.

In that respect, French law has traditionally been said to be restrictive in permitting arbitration for administrative law disputes.

In France, under Article 2060 of the Civil Code, domestic disputes involving the State, as well as public entities (such as municipalities) and public establishments may not be referred to arbitration. Article 2060 provides, to that effect, that “there can be no arbitration […] in disputes concerning public collectives and public entities”. However, this provision has since long been excluded by the Cour de cassation (highest French jurisdiction in civil matters) as far as international disputes are concerned (Cour de cassation, 1re civil chamber, 2 May 1966, Galakis). The Court held on that occasion that “the State is not prohibited from concluding arbitration agreement in international matters”.

In 1975, a new provision was added to Article 2060 of the Civil Code, whereby “certain categories of public entities of an industrial and commercial character can be authorised to arbitrate by decree”. However, pursuant to an opinion given by the Conseil d’Etat (highest French jurisdiction in administrative matters), this provision is applied in a very restrictive manner and only authorises such entities to enter into an arbitration agreement after the dispute has arisen (compromis d’arbitrage).

The question then arose of the capacity of the French State and public entities to validly enter into an arbitration agreement with the American company Walt Disney in the contracts related to the construction of the Eurodisney Park.

In its Walt Disney opinion of 6 March 1986, the Conseil d’Etat pointed out that legal entities of public law could not circumvent the rules determining the jurisdiction of the French administrative courts if the dispute touches upon rules of French administrative law that are considered as being of public policy. It came to the conclusion that the contract envisaged with Walt Disney “resorts to the French domestic legal order” and can therefore not contain a valid arbitration clause, which would be null and void as a matter of public policy.

It therefore appeared that the Walt Disney opinion tended to restrict, in spite of the Cour de Cassation’s ruling in Galakis, the arbitrability of international disputes touching upon administrative law. In fact, the Walt Disney contract was certainly to be considered as international pursuant to Article 1492 of the French Code of Civil proceedings, as it involved the interests of international trade.

Since then, there has been considerable debate on how to open arbitration in France to public law disputes. On 7 April 2006, the Ministry of Justice commissioned a working group to consider the future of arbitration in the context of administrative law. The working Group issued its report (called the Labetoulle report, by the name of its author) on 13 March 2007 (Rev. arb., 2007, Vol. 3: p. 651, on which see J.-L. Delvolvé, Une véritable révolution inaboutie, remarques sur le projet de réforme de l’arbitrage en matière administrative ; and S. Lemaire, Rapport du groupe de travail, ib.).

The Labetoulle report proposed to abolish the prohibition preventing public bodies from agreeing to arbitrate, as set out in article 2060 of the Civil Code. As a result, a draft law was prepared in order to “broaden the possibility for recourse to arbitration for public bodies and to clarify the procedural regime of arbitrations involving public law” (Rapport du groupe de travail sur l’arbitrage en matière administrative, 13 mars 2007 in Rev. arb., 2007, Vol. 3, p. 651). This report was nonetheless criticized in the arbitration community for it set a special regime for the arbitration in administrative cases, distinct from that prevailing under the Code of Civil Procedure for other arbitrations. As a consequence, difficult issues of characterisation would arise, in particular in the context of an international arbitration, to define what would and what would not be an “administrative arbitration”. The Labetoulle report, however, has not so far been converted into law.

A particular and sensitive aspect of that debate is the allocation of jurisdiction between administrative and civil courts to hear challenges.

As it stands, challenges against international awards are brought before the Court of Appeal of the place of the arbitration, pursuant to Article 1505 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which court applies the rules provided for challenges by the French Court of Civil proceedings.

However, the question whether administrative courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving mandatory administrative laws has never been clearly settled.

This issue was however raised in the recent Inserm case.

A dispute arose between the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm), a French public entity, and a Norwegian foundation, with respect to an international cooperation agreement. The agreement provided for inter alia the construction in France of a building dedicated to research in neurobiology. It included an arbitration agreement.

A dispute arose, and the French party seized a French court, which declined to hear the case because of the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Subsequently, the Inserm requested the Paris First Instance Tribunal to appoint an arbitrator.

The arbitrator was appointed and rendered an award in favour of the Norwegian company. A challenge against the award was brought before the Paris Court of Appeal. The Paris Court of Appeal decided (Inserm v. Association Fondation Letten F. Saugstad, Paris Court of Appeal, 13 November 2008, Rev. arb., 2009, Vol. 2, p. 389) that it had jurisdiction to hear the challenge, but rejected it on two grounds. Firstly, it found that the prohibition for States and State entities to arbitrate was limited to domestic contracts, and secondly that, pursuant to the principle of validity of arbitration clauses admitted in French law, the prohibition to arbitrate was not part of international public policy.

However, an action was also brought in parallel by the French party before the French administrative courts, which were requested to annul the award on the basis that the arbitration agreement was null and void.

The case was directly called to the French highest administrative jurisdiction, the Conseil d’Etat.

The question was therefore to determine which of the two judicial bodies, civil or administrative, had jurisdiction to hear the matter in the last resort.

The Conseil d’Etat decided that there were reasonable doubts with respect to the allocation of jurisdiction between civil and administrative courts, and it therefore decided to raise the case to the Tribunal des conflits, which is the French jurisdiction empowered to settle a conflict of jurisdiction between civil and administrative courts.

The Tribunal des conflits rendered its judgement on 17 May 2010. That decision has given rise to a certain level of criticism in the French arbitration community (See Th. Clay, Les contorsions byzantines du Tribunal des conflits en matière d’arbitrage, JCP G, n° 21, 2010, p. 1045, and E. Gaillard, Le Tribunal des conflits torpille le droit français de l’arbitrage, ib., p. 1096).

The Tribunal des Conflits decided that “a challenge against an arbitral award rendered in France on the basis of an arbitration agreement contained in a contract concluded between an entity of French public law and a foreign company, which contract has been performed on the French territory and which concerns the interests of international trade, is to be brought before the court of appeal where the award is rendered pursuant to article 1505 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if the contract is to be characterized as administrative according to French domestic law”.

The Tribunal however added that “the situation is different where a recourse brought under the same circumstances implies that the award be reviewed according to French mandatory rules of public law on the occupation of the public domain or according to the rules governing public expenditure that are applicable to public procurement, to public partnerships or to the delegation of public services, as such agreements are subject to a mandatory administrative regime that is of public policy. A recourse with respect to those contracts is subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative court”.

In other words, a challenge against an international award concerning an international administrative contract which involves the application of the mandatory rules of French administrative law is to be brought before the administrative court rather than before the civil court as it is normally the case. With respect to that particular dispute, the Tribunal found that the civil courts have jurisdiction, but the door is left open to the administrative jurisdiction if French administrative law’s mandatory rules are at stake.

It would certainly have been preferable if the Tribunal des conflits had clearly established that all international awards, even if they relate to administrative mandatory laws, are subject to the rules for vacatur provided by the Code of Civil proceedings and to the jurisdiction of the civil courts of the place of the arbitration. After all, such is the case when mandatory rules of another nature are at stake (such, for example, as European mandatory rules), and there is no real logic to treat administrative mandatory law differently. From that perspective, the decision is certainly a missed opportunity. It is, in addition, likely to increase the procedural difficulties in challenges against contracts concluded with the French State or with French State entities and that are performed in France. Ultimately, it is likely that parties will tend to place the seat of the arbitration in those contracts out of France in order to avoid these difficulties.

It should be noted, however, that the decision does not do much more than clarifying the situation as it resulted after the Walt Disney episode. Since Walt Disney, very little difficulties arose with respect to the jurisdiction of the French civil courts to hear challenges against international awards involving French public entities, and it is to be hoped that no more will arise after the decision of the Tribunal des conflits. If this is the case, hopefully, the Labetoulle report and the Inserm case will remain a storm in a teacup.

Alexis Mourre/Alexandre Vagenheim

The Court of Appeals for the state of Bahia in Brazil recently handed down an arbitration-friendly decision and vacated an injunction intended to stay an arbitration proceeding. In FAT Ferroatlàntica S.L. vs. Zeus Mineração Ltda. and others (see link to English translation below), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether the existence of conflicting arbitration clauses in contracts pertaining to a single economic transaction justifies judicial intervention at the outset of the arbitration. The Court of Appeals held that, provided an arbitration agreement exists, such issue is to be dealt with by the arbitrators, not by the Courts.

Ferroatlàntica, on one hand, and Zeus and Zeus’ individual owners (altogether “Zeus”), on the other, had entered into a joint venture agreement for the research and exploitation of minerals in Brazil. They had also formed a company incorporated in Brazil, FAT Brasil, to perform the research and the exploitation. Zeus had to contribute mining rights to FAT Brasil while Ferroatlàntica had to invest US$22 million in FAT Brasil. The joint venture agreement contained an arbitration clause, which referred to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration, whereas the articles of incorporation of FAT Brasil provided for arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce. The place of arbitration in both agreements was São Paulo, Brazil.

The joint venture agreement also granted Ferroatlàntica an exit option: in the event the research results did not meet certain targets, Ferroatlàntica had the right to exit the joint venture and be repaid the US$22 million invested minus FAT Brasil’s research expenses.

Considering the research results targets had not been met, Ferroatlàntica exercised its exit rights and requested the reimbursement of the balance of its investment in the joint venture. After Zeus refused to pay, Ferroatlàntica initiated an ICC arbitration seeking payment of those sums. In response, Zeus filed a lawsuit before a court in Caetité, in the state of Bahia, Brazil, and obtained an ex parte injunction requesting a stay of the arbitration. Ferroatlántica thereafter filed an interlocutory appeal against the injunction before the Court of Appeals of the State of Bahia, which issued an order vacating the injunction.

When seeking a stay of the arbitration, Zeus had relied on the conflict between the two arbitration clauses and argued such conflict raised “doubts” as to which rules should govern the arbitration.

Since Brazilian law on arbitration provides for judicial assistance at the outset of the arbitration, the Court of Appeals of the State of Bahia had to determine whether the conflict between the arbitration clauses justified such judicial intervention.

The Court of Appeals decided that the existence of conflicting arbitration agreements does not constitute a sufficient cause for a provisional stay of an arbitration. The court found that although conflicting arbitration agreements may raise difficulties for the resolution of a dispute, such difficulties did not justify judicial intervention to allow the arbitration to proceed.

Parallel arbitration proceedings pose a risk of insecurity regarding the outcome of the adjudication procedure. This risk derives from the likelihood that different arbitral tribunals will reach contradictory or incompatible decisions. In some cases, the two decisions may even out at the end. In others, the application of one or both becomes impossible. The most likely consequence is that one or both parties will continue to litigate in the available fora, making compliance with the award(s) unlikely and defeating what many consider to be the purpose of choosing arbitration in the first place: to have an effective and technical decision on the merits using a reasonable amount of resources.

Consolidation of proceedings would be advisable to avoid parallel proceedings. This can always be done in international commercial arbitration if the parties agree to it after the dispute arose. Such an agreement is not uncommon, because, as we have commented above, the prospect of parallel proceedings is a grim enough incentive to opt for consolidation.

In some cases, one of the parties, who is usually the party that has more to lose from the arbitration than the status quo, instead opts for dilatory tactics and litigation in court. More often than not, it is the respondent in the arbitration that takes this road, which is exactly what Zeus, in the possession of US$ 22 million, did.

The dispute that gave rise to the decision commented here was quite simple in practice because all the claims presented by Ferroatlàntica were related to the joint venture agreement. However, in other cases, the relation between the various agreements at issue or the nature of the claim may be such that it is more complex for the parties to determine which arbitration agreement governs their dispute. In those cases, the need for judicial intervention to determine which arbitration agreement prevails could arise. The rationale for such intervention would be similar to the arguments in favor of judicial intervention to support the enforcement of an arbitration agreement where (i) the terms of the agreement themselves are not sufficient to start the arbitration; (ii) one of the parties resists arbitration; or (iii) another obstacle to arbitration arises. The decision by the Court of Appeals of Bahia is an indication, however, that no such action is possible in case of conflicting arbitration

FAT Ferroatlàntica S.L. vs. Zeus Mineração Ltda.

On April 27, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., No. 08-1198, 559 U.S. ___ (2010). The Court reversed a Second Circuit ruling permitting arbitrators to impose class arbitration upon four shipping companies—including White & Case client Stolt-Nielsen S.A.—under those shipping companies’ shipping contracts with their customers, holding that arbitrators exceed their authority under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) if the arbitrators impose class-action arbitration on parties whose arbitration agreement undisputedly is silent on the question of class arbitration.

The FAA expressly governed the parties’ arbitration agreements, and the Supreme Court, reaffirming the foundational importance of consent under the FAA, held that “[A] party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so. In this case, however, the arbitration panel imposed class arbitration even though the parties concurred that they had reached ‘no agreement’ on that issue . . . . The panel’s conclusion is fundamentally at war with the foundational FAA principle that arbitration is a matter of consent.”

The parties had agreed before the arbitration panel that there was no agreement on whether the clause allowed or precluded class action arbitration leaving in the Court’s estimation “no room for an inquiry regarding the parties’ intent, and any inquiry into that settled question would have been outside the panel’s assigned task.” In this context, the Court expressly declined to decide what evidence of an agreement to arbitrate on a class basis is sufficient to support a ruling that class arbitration is available, noting that “[h]ere . . . the parties stipulated that there was ‘no agreement’ on the issue of class action arbitration.”

Additionally, the Court described the fundamental differences between class arbitration and standard, bilateral arbitration, including, among other things: the addition of numerous claims from “hundreds or perhaps even thousands of parties”; loss of confidentiality; the far-reaching effect of an award; and significantly increased financial stakes. These differences caused the Court to conclude “that the differences between bilateral and class-action arbitration are too great for arbitrators to presume, consistent with their limited powers under the FAA, that the parties’ mere silence on the issue of class-action arbitration constitutes consent to resolve their disputes in class proceedings.”

Stolt-Nielsen also referenced two other recent Court decisions that potentially bore on its ruling, Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) and Hall Street Assocs. L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008). The Court discussed at length its earlier decision in Bazzle, following which arbitrators in increasing frequency began to construe arbitration agreements to permit class arbitrations. The Stolt-Nielsen Court explained that in Bazzle, “no single rationale commanded a majority” and that the Court’s plurality opinion in Bazzle had decided only that arbitrator should make the initial determination as to whether an arbitration agreement is silent as to class arbitration. Regarding Hall Street, however, the Court was less expansive, expressly declining to decide whether the “manifest disregard of law” standard in fact survived the Hall Street decision. Instead, the Court held that the arbitrators’ focus on policy rather than the default rule that applies when an arbitration agreement is silent concerning class arbitration would have satisfied the manifest disregard standard.

Following Stolt-Nielsen, there is likely to be some significant wrangling between arbitrating parties over at least the following hot-button issues:

Is the agreement really silent? As the Stolt-Nielsen Court noted on several occasions, the parties agreed that their arbitration agreements were silent as to class arbitration. Parties seeking to pursue class arbitration likely will not stipulate that their agreements are silent anymore. Instead, both sides will highlight the “textual clues” that speak to whether a particular agreement authorizes class arbitration, as Justice Rehnquist emphasized in his dissenting opinion in Bazzle. But, Stolt-Nielsen may stand for the proposition that the “any disputes” language at issue in this case and found in many arbitration agreements, without more, is “silent” and therefore does not permit class arbitration.

What standard applies to vacatur of an arbitral award? Having expressly declined to determine the fate of the “manifest disregard of law standard,” the standard that the district court applied to vacate the arbitral awards, parties (and lower courts) will continue to dispute the availability of “manifest disregard.” Indeed, Stolt-Nielsen may have made it easier to overturn an unfavorable award. It appears that an arbitrator’s reliance on policy over settled law, i.e., his manifest disregard of the law, is now a ground for vacatur. Perhaps the arbitrator has merely “exceeded his powers,” as Section 10(b)(4) of the FAA provides, but this is sure to be a point of contention in the lower courts. Similarly, the Court’s determination that a clause construction award is ripe for review—to the chagrin of the dissenters, who questioned the Court’s reaching the merits “so early in the game”—gives parties renewed hope for immediate review of the ultra vires acts of arbitrators. Finally, the Court’s clarification that Bazzle did not produce a majority opinion on any issue also raises the possibility for disputes over who—the court or the arbitrator—should decide whether a particular arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration.

What is the effect on consumer arbitrations? Stolt-Nielsen involves sophisticated, multi-national parties on both sides and, as the majority opinion notes, an arbitration clause that the customer (AnimalFeeds) selected. But what of consumer disputes? Stolt-Nielsen itself does not distinguish between consumer and business-to-business arbitrations, but many believe that courts will be more receptive to invalidating arbitration agreements that waive or preclude class arbitration as unconscionable. For its part, the Court, in light of Stolt-Nielsen, recently vacated and remanded a Second Circuit decision that struck a class arbitration waiver provision as unconscionable. Like Stolt-Nielsen, however, the Second Circuit case, In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2009), involved businesses on both sides. The Supreme Court’s recent resolution of the case—granting certiorari, and vacating and remanding the case in light of Stolt-Nielsen—could mean that invalidation of the entire arbitration clause as unconscionable, and not merely the class arbitration waiver provision, may be required to avoid bilateral arbitral resolution of a dispute, a much tougher task sure to spawn significant litigation in the future. See Am. Express Co., et al. v. Italian Colors, 2010 WL 1740528 (U.S.).

Stay tuned.

By Christopher M. Curran and Charles C. Moore

In recent years, there has been increasing concern about court orders aimed at preventing a party from initiating, continuing or participating in arbitration proceedings (see notably, IAI Series on International Arbitration, no 2, Anti-Suit Injunction in International Arbitration, E. Gaillard ed., 2005; ICCA Congress Series, No 13 International Arbitration 2006, Back to Basics?, A. J. Van Den Berg, Kluwer Law Int 2007).

The Paris court of first instance (Tribunal de Grande Instance) has in recent months rendered two interesting decisions in this respect. These two decisions address the issue whether and to what extent French courts can interfere with the arbitral proceedings, in particular when relief is sought in summary proceedings on the basis of an alleged risk of imminent or irreparable harm. In both sets of proceedings, the arbitrators were directly sued.

The first of these two cases led to an order of the Paris court of 6 January 2010 (S.A. Elf Aquitaine and Total v. Mattei, Lai. Kamara and Reiner). The claim amounted to an aggressive attempt to derail an ongoing arbitration by requesting the court to enjoin the arbitrators from pursuing the proceedings. The underlying dispute in the arbitration was concerned with a cooperation contract concluded between Elf Neftgaz, a subsidiary of Elf Aquitaine, and certain Russian parties. The basis for the request was that a shareholders’ assembly of Elf Neftgaz had decided the liquidation of said company. The Russian parties subsequently made an application to the president of the Paris tribunal of commerce to appoint an ad hoc representative for Elf Neftgaz to the effects of the arbitration they were about to commence against such company. The court accepted such request and appointed an ad hoc representative for Elf Neftgaz. The arbitration commenced with its seat in Paris, and the court appointed representative nominated an arbitrator on behalf of Elf Neftgaz. However, the judgment having designated the ad hoc representative was thereafter retracted upon request of Elf Aquitaine. Although such decision was appealed by the Russian parties, Elf Aquitaine and Total seized the court in summary proceedings (référé) against the three arbitrators (who were the only named defendants) to obtain an injunction to interrupt the arbitration. The request was based on the contention that Elf Neftgaz’s arbitrator had been appointed by a representative deprived of powers and that the continuance of the arbitration in spite of the withdrawal of the court decision having nominated Elf Neftgaz’s representative would be such as to cause irreparable harm.

The case leading to the Paris First Instance Tribunal decision of 29 March 2010 (Republic of Equatorial Guinea v Fitzpatrick Equatorial Guinea, de Ly, Owen and Leboulanger) was concerned with a contract for the construction of a highway. A dispute arose between the parties, and Fitzpatrick initiated ICC arbitration. Like in the Elf case, the seat of the arbitration was in Paris. The Republic challenged the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction on the basis that the arbitral agreement and the laws of Equatorial Guinea imposed to exhaust local judicial remedies before arbitration could be initiated. The Republic also submitted that Fitzpatrick had been placed in insolvency proceedings in Equatorial Guinea and that only the receiver appointed by the local court had powers to represent it. The arbitral tribunal rendered a partial award upholding its jurisdiction, and proceeded to instruct the merits in the second phase of the arbitration. Meanwhile, the partial award was challenged before the Paris Court of Appeal. Based upon such challenge, the Republic made an application before the Arbitral Tribunal to stay the arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected such application and the Republic started summary proceedings to enjoin the arbitrators from continuing the arbitration until the Court of appeal decision in the setting aside proceedings.

Both sets of proceedings were initiated pursuant to article 809 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that “The president [of the Tribunal of First Instance] may always, even if the request is subject to serious objections, order in summary proceedings such conservatory or protective measures that may be necessary to prevent imminent harm or to put an end to a manifestly illegal trouble”.

In the Elf case, the claimants alleged that the arbitration should not proceed for the judgment having designated the representative of a party had been retracted. As a consequence, the nomination of an arbitrator by such party was invalid, thus jeopardizing the entire constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The respondents objected that French law does not permit courts to deliver injunctions to an arbitral tribunal, and that based upon the negative aspect of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, arbitrators have exclusive jurisdiction to rule upon their own jurisdiction, the courts’ assessment being postponed until a possible challenge against the award, with the consequence that courts are deprived of any power to assess the arbitrators’ jurisdiction once the arbitral tribunal is constituted.

The court endorsed such arguments and decided that, once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, it is only for it to decide on its own jurisdiction, and that it is as a consequence for the arbitral tribunal to decide the consequences of the withdrawal of the court nomination of a party representative on the regularity of its own constitution: “notwithstanding the effect of the withdrawal of the order having designating the [party representative] and the irregular designation of two or three of the arbitrators, the question of the existence of this arbitral tribunal or of the regularity of its constitution falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, which excludes that the court be seized in summary proceedings”.

The court adopted the same principles in the Republic of Equatorial Guinea case.

The Republic argued that the arbitral tribunal manifestly lacked jurisdiction because the arbitral agreement and the local law requested exhaustion of local remedies. Based on such contention, it developed several arguments. First, it argued that it would suffer an imminent and irreparable harm if the arbitration were to proceed for the award on the merits would be rendered before the Court of Appeal has a chance to rule on the challenge against the interim award on jurisdiction. Although the claimant conceded that the award on the merits could not be enforced in France until such challenge is decided (in particular because the challenge stays the enforcement of the award under French law), it would nevertheless be faced with the risk of enforcement abroad. In addition, the ICC Court of Arbitration had requested the Republic to pay an additional advance on costs, which the Republic might not be able to recoup would the award be ultimately quashed. Finally, the Republic had lodged a criminal complaint on the ground of an alleged forgery, and it submitted that all proceedings should be stayed pending the criminal proceedings. The respondent raised a number of objections. First, the claim supposed that the court would express a view on the arbitral tribunal’s alleged lack of jurisdiction which had already been decided in the partial award, thus violating the res judicata of said award (awards have in France res judicata since they are rendered – Article 1476 of the Code of Civil Proceedings). Second, like in the Elf case, it submitted that the arbitral tribunal enjoys an absolute priority to decide issues relating to its jurisdiction. In addition, French courts are deprived of any jurisdiction to interfere with the arbitral proceedings and cannot give injunctions to an arbitral tribunal, even though it sits in France. Third, French law clearly sets the principle that a challenge against a partial award on jurisdiction does not stay the arbitral proceedings and the arbitral tribunal can therefore proceed to instruct the merits even though setting aside proceedings are pending (notably, Cass. 19 March 2002). Finally, the criminal proceedings that the Republic had instrumentally started do not have the effect of staying the arbitral proceedings (Cass. 25 October 2005).

The court rejected the application. It admitted that: “Article 809 of the Code of Civil Proceedings may be the basis for an order in summary proceedings [to prevent imminent harm or to put an end to a manifestly illegal trouble] even if the arbitral tribunal is already constituted and courts are deprived of jurisdiction to decide the dispute”. But such an order can only be taken “to secure the enforcement of the arbitral award” and the court can therefore not “order the arbitrators to stay the proceedings” as “to order such a measure would constitute an interference with the arbitral proceedings which does not fall within the jurisdiction of national courts, even in summary proceedings”.

These two decisions confirm in very clearly terms that in no circumstance is the court authorized to interfere in any manner with arbitral proceedings (in an earlier order dated 24 June 2004, the Court of Paris had already decided that “in no circumstance”, and “whatever the legal grounds invoked”, has the court any power to order an arbitral tribunal to stay its proceedings – TGI Paris, 24 June 2004, LV Finance Group, Rev. Arb. 2005, p. 1037).

In sum, French courts may only intervene in support of the arbitration and in the limited cases provided by the law. In no circumstance can they entertain instrumental claims aimed at staying or disrupting the arbitration.

A bon entendeur…

Alexis Mourre/Alexandre Vagenheim

In a post last year we considered the English Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Dallah Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2009] EWCA Civ 755, where the Court of Appeal held that an order giving leave to enforce a French ICC arbitration award was rightly set aside by the High Court as it had been established, pursuant to section 103(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”), that as a matter of French law the respondent government was not a party to the arbitration agreement. The High Court and Court of Appeal agreed that an application under section 103(2) of the Act required a rehearing of the facts in contention (in Dallah the existence of an arbitration agreement), not just a review of the award.

It was suggested that Dallah highlighted a possible divergence between the apparent pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement attitude of English law, and the reality of practice before the English courts, where very limited deference is afforded to foreign arbitral awards in the circumstances of challenge to enforcement pursuant to section 103(2). As hoped, Dallah has now been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, where the allocation of jurisdictional competence between the arbitral tribunal and the English courts – particularly as regards the finality of New York Convention awards – will hopefully be given close scrutiny.

Subsequent to Dallah, however, there have been a number of other cases that highlight the current tension between the English legal community’s pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement attitude, and the Act, which may allocate jurisdictional competence to the English courts rather than international arbitral tribunals. This blog briefly reviews several such decisions, namely three recent challenges to the substantive jurisdiction of international arbitral awards pursuant to section 67 of the Act.

Who is Most Competent? Section 67 of the Act and Finality of Arbitral Decisions in England

Similarly as with Dallah, recent case law from the English courts indicates that when considering challenges to the substantive jurisdiction of an award pursuant to section 67, the English courts will conduct a complete rehearing into the matter, not just a review of the tribunal’s determination. An arbitral tribunal’s ruling as to whether there is a valid arbitration agreement; whether the tribunal is properly constituted; and what matters were submitted to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement, are all subject to being reopened and reheard on the merits before the English courts. Such challenges are available both at the enforcement stage, and as a preliminary question. Moreover, section 67 is a mandatory provision of the Act and parties agreeing to international arbitration in England cannot contract out of it.

In Republic of Serbia v Imagesat International NV [2009] EWHC 2853 (Comm) the High Court considered a challenge to the substantive jurisdiction of an ICC tribunal pursuant to section 67 of the Act. The tribunal, seated in England and applying English law, determined its jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in the arbitration. The ICC tribunal held that under the terms of reference it had substantive jurisdiction to deal with, among other things, the interesting question of whether Serbia had conferred on the ICC tribunal jurisdiction to determine if it was the “continuator/successor” of the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro for the purposes of the latter’s contract with Imagesat, and thus whether it was a party to the arbitration agreement.

For present purposes we are interested in the High Court’s application of section 67 of the Act. In this regard the Court held, applying Azov Shipping Co. v Baltic Shipping Co., that in hearing a challenge under section 67 “it is for the court to determine whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction and whether he was correct in deciding that he did.” In undertaking this enquiry, the Court “does so without any preconception that the arbitrator made the right decision.” The Court in Serbia went further still, stating that the “arbitrator’s determination [as to jurisdiction] can only be provisional.” That sweeping pronouncement is difficult to reconcile with the proposition that arbitral awards are final and binding between the parties, subject to limited judicial oversight. Equally, the tenor of the pronouncement is in some tension with the notion that that judicial review of arbitral awards is limited, with substantial deference being afforded to the arbitrators’ decisions.

The English Court again considered its section 67 jurisdiction in Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v Cometal SAL [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm). The High Court did not consider it controversial that it would be conducting a rehearing of the arbitral tribunal’s determination on jurisdiction. In that case Habas applied to set aside an interim final arbitration award on jurisdiction, which determined that the parties had concluded an arbitration agreement. The contract in question did not contain an arbitration clause but provided that “All the rest [of the terms] will be same as our previous contracts,” of which there had been 14. The arbitral tribunal held that the reference to the terms of “our previous contracts” was to the terms of the 11 previous contracts between the parties, which were prepared by the respondent and contained London arbitration clauses (notwithstanding that the first three of the 14 contracts between the parties did not provide for arbitration).

Similarly, the February 2010 decision in Norscot Rig Management PVT Ltd v Essar Oilfields Services Ltd [2010] EWHC 195 (Comm) confirmed that a section 67 application involved a rehearing of the jurisdictional point. In Norscot Rig the applicant challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to adjudicate certain set-offs and counterclaims by the defendant, Essar, in the arbitration. Those set-offs and counterclaims arose not by way of breach of the contract containing the arbitration agreement, but pursuant to breach of a second contract between the same parties, but which did not contain an arbitration clause. The arbitrator determined that he had jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement to determine the counterclaim. The High Court dismissed the section 67 challenge, holding that while the counterclaims did not “arise out of” the terms of the contract giving rise to the arbitration, they did “relate to” the contract under which the arbitration was commenced and therefore within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Thus, as with the position under section 103, in considering a section 67 application, the Court is to undertake a full rehearing on the merits of the jurisdictional issue under challenge. This wide jurisdictional oversight again highlights a divergence between the apparent pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement attitude of the English legal community, and the very broad scope of the English High Court’s jurisdiction to hear section 67 challenges – where no deference is afforded to the international arbitral awards at issue.

Azov Shipping Revisited

In light of this tension it is worth returning to the leading authority on section 67 jurisdiction, Azov Shipping, and examining the High Court’s interpretation of its jurisdiction in that case. Notably, during the course of the Azov Shipping saga, on three separate occasions three justices of the High Court, Rix J (as he then was), Longmore J (as he then was) and Coleman J, each had opportunity to comment on the Court’s section 67 jurisdiction.

Rix J, the first of the three to interpret the scope of Court’s oversight function pursuant to section 67, held that it enabled the challenger “to present his case and challenge the opposing party’s case on the question of jurisdiction with the full panoply of oral evidence and cross-examination so that, in effect, the challenge becomes a complete rehearing of all that has already occurred before the arbitrator.” Rix J considered Lord Saville’s distinguished Departmental Advisory Committee Report on the Arbitration Bill 1996 (1996 DAC Report), stating that “[i]t is not as though the court is required to review a challenge to the arbitrator’s award on jurisdiction through the eyes of the arbitrator or on his findings of fact. As para 143 of the report on the Bill makes clear: ‘A challenge to jurisdiction may well involve questions of fact as well as questions on law.’”

Coleman J also justified a wide section 67 jurisdiction by reasoning that it “is intended to reflect the principles that, whereas an arbitrator has a limited jurisdiction of a provisional nature in line with the internationally accepted doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, his determination cannot be conclusive between the parties because of the nature of the intrinsic issue, for his jurisdiction can only be founded on the very mutual assent which is in issue.” That view was based on the 1996 DAC Report, which advised that clause 30 of the Bill (later to become section 30 of the Act) “states what is called the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz,” but that “clearly the tribunal cannot be the final arbiter of a question of jurisdiction, for this would provide a classic case of pulling oneself up by one’s own bootstraps.”

Reallocation of Jurisdictional Competence in England: Room For Debate

The 1996 DAC Report and the subsequent enactment of the Act marked a watershed in arbitration law in England, in particular the Act banished the position that arbitrators could do no more than express a view as to whether they had jurisdiction or not. Tribunals could now determine their own jurisdiction, including in a final award, subject to rights of challenge in the courts. The Act, however, did not go as far as to adopt the classic doctrinal conception of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, as the 1996 DAC Report might appear to suggest.
That original conception of Kompetenz-Kompetenz (under German law) was historically understood as recognizing an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to finally decide questions regarding its own jurisdiction, without the possibility of subsequent judicial challenge or review. Instead, the Act adopts its own formulation of Kompetenz-Kompetenz (by way of both sections 7 (separability) and 30), just as almost every significant international arbitration jurisdiction has adopted (and continues to develop) its own unique concept of the doctrine, affording different degrees of priority and finality to an arbitral tribunal’s exercise of its Kompetenz-Kompetenz, or more accurately, its jurisdictional competence.

Recognizing this, together with the evolving law of international arbitration, there should continue to be debate about whether English law strikes the best balance between acceptable judicial oversight of the international arbitral process (so as to ensure it is not subject to abuses or practices that undermine its legitimacy as best practice for international dispute resolution), and the interests of party autonomy and the efficient and flexible resolution of international disputes.

In Azov Shipping, Rix J expressed a common pro-oversight sentiment, that “[u]ltimately, a question of justice, where it conflicts with a modest prejudice to expedition or increase in cost, must be given greater weight.” The other side of the coin is that none of the section 67 challenges in Azov Shipping, or the more recent Serbia, Habas Sinai or Norscot Rig cases were successful. In the words of Longmore J in Azov, the applicants, having already lost their jurisdictional challenges before the tribunal were “effectively now having a second bite at the same cherry.” It can readily be seen how parties can abuse the section 67 procedure, and it is questionable whether the interests of justice are served by providing recalcitrant parties with an instrument of cost and delay.

Just as importantly, the ability to require as of right a complete rehearing of jurisdictional issues (both fact and law) already determined by an arbitral tribunal, significantly undermines the cornerstones of the international arbitration regime, being procedural neutrality, judicial non-intervention, party autonomy, flexibility of procedures, and the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards. The potential for section 67 to erode the efficacy of international arbitration as an international dispute resolution procedure must also be considered alongside the stated purposes of the Act, which are to “obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense” and that “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest.”

These recent cases should again promote debate about whether the Act strikes the right balance between these competing interests.

Gary B. Born and Timothy J. Lindsay