India gives Hong Kong a golden opportunity
A recent administrative event in Delhi may have profound implications for the ongoing rivalry between Singapore and Hong Kong as Asia’s arbitration hubs of choice.
On 19 March 2012 India confirmed that it will add the Peoples’ Republic of China (including the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao) to the list of so-called “gazetted” states. Only arbitral awards rendered in states notified via the Government of India Official Gazette will be recognised and enforced in India under the New York Convention. This condition flows from s.44 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1995. The list of 45 or so gazetted states (out of 144 ratifying New York Convention s [...]
The Unavoidability of Uncertainty: One Lesson from the Recent U.S. Court Ruling in Argentina v. BG Group
It has become fashionable in recent years, each time an ICSID annulment decision is released that takes issue with the procedures or reasoning of an ICSID tribunal, for commentators to bemoan the lack of certainty, predictability and finality that this reflects in the ICSID system for adjudicating investment treaty disputes between investors and host States. Some commentators urge a return to greater use of ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration, or arbitration before institutions other than ICSID, to avoid the perceived vagaries of the ICSID annulment process. Yet commentators often forget that these alternatives carry their own risks of uncertainty, inherent in the national court review process tha [...]
Declaratory award held enforceable by English court: a healthy move for arbitration?
- By Phillip Capper, White & Case LLP,
for White & Case
Following the path of the hotly debated West Tankers decision, in African Fertilizers v BD Shipsnavo, the English Commercial Court held that a declaratory award is enforceable, allowing judgment to be entered on the same terms as the arbitral award. Such an order enables a party to obtain the material benefit of the award and indicates the continuing trend of the English courts in favour of arbitration and the enforcement of arbitral awards. However, this approach does raise questions for the health of the inter-twining co-existence of the arbitration and court systems.
The declaratory award (on the tribunal’s jurisdiction) was made pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in a bi [...]
December Surprise: New Second Circuit Ruling on Forum Non Conveniens in Enforcement Proceedings
On December 14, the Second Circuit rendered its decision in Figueiredo Ferraz e Engenharia de Projecto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru, 2001 WL 6188497 (2d Cir. Dec. 14, 2011), which represents a significant development in the court’s jurisprudence on forum non conveniens dismissals of actions to enforce foreign arbitral awards. As explained below, the decision also reveals anomalies in the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which take the instruments beyond the scope of international commercial arbitration and, thus, may encourage forum non conveniens dismissals in certain cases.
As previously discussed in this blog, the Second Circuit drew criticism in 2002 by applyi [...]
Key Developments in Relation to Arbitration in Dubai
The International Bar Association annual conference in Dubai in November put the spotlight on the arbitral regime in Dubai. Several “hot topics” were discussed, including the possibility that counsel representing parties in arbitrations in Dubai would be charged a hefty fee by the Dubai government and the prospect of a new United Arab Emirates (UAE) federal arbitration law based upon the UNCITRAL Model Law. We learned that the former was not a real concern for lawyers not based in the country full-time; while the latter is apparently back on the table after it was first raised in 2008.
Questions regarding arbitration in Dubai usually focus on enforcement in general, and, particularly, th [...]
Setting aside an international arbitration award based on deficient pleadings
If it isn’t pleaded, you can’t consider it. That in a nutshell appears to be the holding established recently by the Singapore High Court in Kempinski Hotels SA v PT Prima International Development [2011] SGHC 171 (“Kempinski”). That case saw the setting aside of three related international arbitration awards on the basis that the tribunal had gone beyond the scope of matters submitted to it by making a decision based on an issue not formally pleaded.
Facts and Decision
The applicant (Kempinski Hotels) was a Swiss company which contracted to manage a hotel of the respondent (an Indonesian company called PT Prima) in Jakarta. The Indonesian Ministry of Tourism subsequently issued th [...]
