Gillies, Peter --- "Enforcement of International Commercial Arbitration Awards - the New York Convention" [2004] IntTBLawRw 2; (2004) 9 International Trade and Business Law Review 19
* MA, LLM Syd, PhD NSW, Law Division, Macquarie University.
[1] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
[2] See, eg, in Australia the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) provides that the Convention governs the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, but the Model Law applies to local awards made in respect of international disputes, except where the parties have expressly opted out of the Model Law.
[3] EAST Inc v M/V ALAIA, [1989] USCA5 1215; 876 F 2d 1168 (5th Cir, 1989).
[4] See, eg, Food Corp of India v Mardestine Compania Naviera (1979) 4 YB Com Arb 270; Sumitomo Corp v Parakopi Compania Maritima, SA, 477 F Supp 737 (SDNY, 1979).
[5] Jaranilla v Megasea Maritime Ltd, 171 F Supp 2d 644, 646 (La, 2001).
[6] 710 F 2d 928 (2nd Cir, 1983). Consideration of the US statute implementing the Convention fortified this conclusion 933-34.
[7] Ibid, 932.
[8] Jones v Sea Tow Services Freeport New York Inc, [1994] USCA2 820; 30 F 3d 360 (2nd Cir, 1994).
[9] Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, [1983] USCA1 399; 723 F 2d 155, 164 (1st Cir, 1983).
[10] [1989] USCA1 507; 886 F 2d 469 (1st Cir, 1989).
[11] See also Filanto SpA v Chilewich International Corp, 789 F Supp 1229 (SDNY, 1992), holding that it is for the court to decide whether the arbitral agreement exists, and if it does, it is for the arbitrator to decide issues regarding the existence of the underlying contract.
[13] Ibid, 609, citing Lummus Co v Commonwealth Oil Refining Co Inc, 280 F 2d 915,924 (1st Cir), cert denied, 364 US 911 (1960); see also Filanto SpA v Chilewich International Corp, 789 F Supp 1229
(SDNY, 1992).
[14] 1996 WL 637843 (ND Cal).
[15] [1991] FCA 637; [1991] 33 FCR 227.
[16] Ibid, 234–37, applying Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] Law Reports, House of Lords, Appeal Cases 356.
[17] Ibid, QH Tours Ltd, 240.
[18] Twi Lite International Inc v Anam Pacific Corp, 1996 WL 637843 (ND Cal), where it was claimed that the contract containing the arbitral clause was procured by fraud; Oriental Commercial and Shipping Co Ltd v Rosseel, NV, 609 F Supp 75 (SDNY, 1985).
[19] Ibid, Twi Lite International Inc.
[20] Ledee v Ceramiche Ragno, [1982] USCA1 283; 684 F 2d 184,187 (1st Cir, 1982); Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, [1983] USCA1 399; 723 F 2d 155, 165 (1st Cir, 1983); Oriental Commercial and Shipping Co Ltd v Rosseel NV, 609 F Supp 75 (SDNY, 1985).
[21] But see Chloe Z Fishing Co Inc v Odyssey Re (London) Ltd, 109 F Supp 2d 1236 (SD Cal, 2000), where the court held that Article 2(2) prescribes a mandatory, not a minimum requirement.
[22] Ibid.
[23] See also Compagnie de Navigation et Transports SA v MSC (Mediterranean Shipping Co), 21 YB Com Arb 690, 697 (Switzerland, 1996), minimising the need for a signature having regard to modern forms of communication.
[24] Bergesen v Joseph Muller Corp, 710 F 2d 928, 934 (2nd Cir, 1983).
[25] Vicere Livio v Prodexport (Italy v Romania), 7 YB Com Arb 345 (1981).
[26] Sumitomo Corp v Parakopi Compania Maritima SA, 477 F Supp 737 (SDNY, 1979); Seven Seas Shipping (UK) Ltd v Tondo Limitada, 99 Civ 1164 (DLC, 1999).
[27] The Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co, 407 US 1 (1972), cited in Société Nationale Algerienne pour la Recherche, la Production, le Transport, la Transformation et la Commercialisation des Hydrocarbures v Distrigas Corp, 80 BR 606, 612 (D Mass, 1987).
[28] See, eg, China Nanhai Oil Joint Service Corp v Gee Tai Holdings Co Ltd, 20 YB Com Arb 671 (1995), 678–79 (objection to an award because the arbitrators were drawn from list A and not list B; defence established but rejected in exercise of the court's discretion). See also Chromalloy Aeroservices v The Arab Republic of Egypt, 939 F Supp 907, 909 (DDC, 1996).
[29] Ibid, China Nanhai Oil Joint Service Corp, 678–79.
[30] Karaha Bodas Co LCC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 190 F Supp 2d 936, 943 (SD Texas 2001); Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Société Generale de l'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA)[1974] USCA2 836; , 508 F 2d 969,973 (2nd Cir, 1974); Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons WLL v TOYS 'R' US Inc[1997] USCA2 518; , 126 F 3d 15 (2nd Cir, 1997).
[31] Resort Condominiums International Inc v Bowell (1993) 118 ALR 655, 675–78. The judge, Lee J, held that the alleged award was not an arbitral award within the scope of the Convention, being in the nature of interlocutory orders and not a final award. Even if it was an award, he considered that he had a residual discretion to refuse recognition independently of the Convention defences which were provided for in the implementing statute. This was because this statute, the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), s 8(5), provided that the court ‘may, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, refuse to enforce the award if that party proves that’ [the defences in Article 5(1)(a) are listed in the remainder of s 8(5)]. Lee J saw it to be significant that the term only was not used in this preamble to s 8(5), in contrast to Article 5(1)(a), the preamble to which states that recognition and enforcement may be refused ‘only if the party’ [proves one of the defences enumerated below]; see the comment by Chukwumerije, O, ‘Enforcement of foreign awards in Australia: the implications of Resort Condominiums’ (1994) 5 Aust Dispute Resolution Journal 237.
[32] Karaha Bodas Co LCC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 190 F Supp 2d 936, 943 (SD Texas, 2001).
[33] See, eg, Karaha Bodas Co LCC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 190 F Supp 2d 936, 943 (SD Texas, 2001) that the party resisting enforcement bears the burden of proof has been confirmed by the courts many times.
[34] Libyan American Oil Co v Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya, 482 F Supp 1175 (Colombia, 1980).
[35] See, eg, Libyan American Oil Co v Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya, 482 F Supp 1175, 1178 (Colombia 1980), citing Ipitrade International SA v Federal Republic of Nigeria, 465 F Supp 824 (DDC, 1978). See also the discussion of the issue in the decision of an arbitration panel in Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd (Hong Kong) v Arab Republic of Egypt 9 YB Com Arb 111 (1983). The panel rejected Egypt’s claim of sovereign immunity, endorsing the view that it would be anomalous to conclude that a state, because of its supreme position and qualities, should be unable to give a binding promise (119).
[36] 1996 WL 637843 (ND Cal).
[37] Citing Prima Paint Corp v Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co, [1967] USSC 172; 388 US 395, 404 (1967).
[38] Bobbie Brooks Inc v Lanificio Walter Banci SaS (US v Italy) 4 YB Com Arb 289, 290-91 (Court of Appeal, Florence, 1979).
[39] Fougerolle SA (France) v Ministry of Defence of the Syrian Arab Republic 15 YB Com Arb 515
(1990).
[40] Iran Aircraft Industries v AVCO Corp, [1992] USCA2 1072; 980 F 2d 141, 145 (2nd Cir, 1992).
[41] Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 190 F Supp 2d 936, 949 (SD Texas, 2001), citing Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée v Hammermills Inc, 1992 WL 122712, 5 (DDC) (PM).
[42] 697 F Supp 1248 (EDNY, 1988).
[43] Bobbie Brooks Inc v Lanificio Walter Banci SaS (US v Italy) 4 YB Com Arb 289, 290–91 (Court of
Appeal, Florence, 1979).
[44] Ibid, 291.
[45] 745 F Supp 172 (SDNY, 1990).
[46] International Standard Electric Corp v Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera Industrial y Comercial, l
[745] F Supp 172, 180 (SDNY, 1990).
[47] Iran Aircraft Industries v AVCO Corp, [1992] USCA2 1072; 980 F 2d 141, 145–46 (2nd Cir, 1992), citing Mathews v Eldrige, [1976] USSC 20; 424 US 319, 333 (S Ct, 1976); Armstrong v Manzo, [1965] USSC 81; 380 US 545, 552 (1965).
[48] 190 F Supp 2d 936 (SD Texas, 2001).
[49] Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 190 F Supp 2d
[936] , 951 (SD Texas, 2001), fn 15. 50 Ibid, 952. 51 1996 WL 637843 (ND Cal).
[52] Twi Lite International Inc v Anam Pacific Corp, 1996 WL 637843 (ND Cal).
[53] Tracer Research Corp v National Environmental Services Co, 42 F 3d 1292 (9th Cir, 1994).
[54] Lexis 227 (US Dist, 2002).
[55] Compare, a party resisting enforcement of an award in the English case of Ford & Co Ltd v Compagnie Furness (France) (1922) 12 LlL Rep 281, on the same ground, that is, that the arbitration was time barred, was successful. This party had raised the issue prior to arbitration and had declined to participate in it. The case predated the New York Convention, but the outcome would logically be the same had it applied to enforcement.
[56] China Nanhai Oil Joint Service Corp v Gee Tai Holdings Co Ltd, 20 YB Com Arb 671, 679 (1995).
[57] Iran Aircraft Industries v AVCO Corp, [1992] USCA2 1072; 980 F 2d 141, 145 (2nd Cir, 1992), citing I/S Stavborg v National Metal Converters Inc, [1974] USCA2 418; 500 F 2d 424, 427 (2nd Cir, 1974).
[58] Bobbie Brooks Inc v Lanificio Walter Banci SaS (US v Italy), 4 YB Com Arb 289, 291 (Court of Appeal, Florence, 1978).
[59] 517 F Supp 948 (SD Ohio, 1981).
[60] Fertiliser Corp of India v IDI Management Inc, 517 F Supp 948, 958 (SD Ohio, 1981), noting the comments of Professor Gerald Aksen, General Counsel of the American Arbitration Association.
[61] Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd (Hong Kong) v The Arab Republic of Egypt, 10 YB Com Arb 487, 489–90 (District Court of Amsterdam, 1985).
[62] 939 F Supp 907 (DDC, 1996).
[63] Ibid, 911.
[64] Ibid, 912ff. In Hilmarton Ltd v Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation (OTV) Revue de l'Arbitrage 1994 (see extracts in 20 YB Com Arb 663 (1995)), an award which had been set aside in Switzerland was enforced by a French court.
[65] Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons WLL v TOYS 'R' US Inc[1997] USCA2 518; , 126 F 3d 15 (2nd Cir, 1997). See also International Standard Electric Corp v Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera, Industrial y Comercial,
[745] F Supp 172, 178 (SDNY, 1990).
[66] Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc, [1983] USCA1 399; 723 F 2d 155 (1st Cir, 1983).
[67] [1974] USCA2 836; 508 F 2d 969 (2nd Cir, 1974).
[68] Ibid, 975.
[69] Citing Scherk v Alberto-Culver Co, 42 USLW 4911, 4914 (1974).
[70] Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Société Generale de l'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA)[1974] USCA2 836; , 508 F2d 969, 974 (2nd Cir, 1974).
[71] [1983] USCA1 399; 723 F 2d 155 (1st Cir, 1983).
[72] Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc, [1983] USCA1 399; 723 F 2d 155, 162 (1st Cir, 1983).
[73] Ibid, 163.
[74] Audi-NSU Auto Union AG (FR Germ) v SA Adelin Petit & Cie (Belgium), 5 YB Com Arb 257
(Court of Appeal of Liege, 1979).
[75] Libyan American Oil Co v Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya, 482 F Supp 1175, 1178–79 (Colombia, 1980).
[76] Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Société Generale de L'Industrie Du Papier (RAKTA)[1974] USCA2 836; , 508 F.2d 969, 974 (2nd Cir, 1974), per Joseph Smith J, citing Loucks v Standard Oil Co, 224 NY 99, 111 (1918). See also Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, [1983] USCA1 399; 723 F 2d 155, 164 (1st Cir, 1983); Renusagar Power Co Ltd v General Electric Co (India v US), 20 YB Com Arb 681, 701 (Supreme Court of India, 1995); Henry v Murphy Lexis 227 (US Dist, 2002), 11 (confirming the judicial bias in favour of narrow construction).
[77] Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Société Generale de L'Industrie Du Papier (RAKTA)[1974] USCA2 836; , 508 F 2d 969 (2nd Cir, 1974).
[78] Renusagar Power Co Ltd v General Electric Co (India v US), 20 YB Com Arb 681, 702 (Supreme Court of India, 1995).
[79] Lemenda Trading Co Ltd v African Middle East Petroleum Co Ltd [1988] QB 448, 461, per Phillips J, cited in Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport-SDPR Holding Co Ltd [1999] 3 All ER 864, 874, per Waller LJ.
[80] Waterside Ocean Navigation Co v International Navigation Ltd, [1984] USCA2 620; 737 F 2d 150, 152 (2nd Cir, 1984); Europcar Italia SpA v Maiellano Tours Inc, [1998] USCA2 379; 156 F 3d 310, 315 (2nd Cir, 1998); Henry v Murphy, Lexis 227 (US Dist 2002), 11.
[81] Seller (Nationality not indicated) v Buyer (Nationality not indicated), 17 YB Com Arb 503, 505 (Federal Supreme Court, Germany, 1992). See also German (FR) Charterer v Romanian Shipowner, 12 YB Com Arb 489, 490 (Federal Supreme Court, Germany, 1987).
[82] KS AG v CC SA, 20 YB Com Arb 762, 763–64 (Execution and Bankruptcy Chamber, Canton Tessin, Switzerland, 1995).
[83] Arcata Graphics Buffalo Ltd v The Movie (Magazine) Corp, Lexis 530 (Ont Sup CJ, 1993).
[84] Bobbie Brooks Inc v Lanificio Walter Banci SaS (US v Italy), 4 YB Com Arb 289, 292 (Court of Appeal, Florence, 1978); Renusagar Power Co Ltd v General Electric Co (India v US), 20 YB Com Arb 681, 701 (Supreme Court of India, 1995); Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport-SDPR Holding Co Ltd [1999] 3 All ER 864, 873ff, per Waller J; Seller (Nationality not indicated) v Buyer (Nationality not indicated), 17 YB Com Arb 503, 505 (Federal Supreme Court, Germany, 1992); KS AG v CC SA, 20 YB Com Arb 762 (Execution and Bankruptcy Chamber, Canton Tessin, Switzerland, 1995).
[85] Ibid, Bobbie Brooks Inc, 292.
[86] 20 YBCom Arb 681, 701 (1995).
[87] Renusagar Power Co Ltd (India) v General Electric Co (US), 20 YB Com Arb 681, 701 (1995).
[88] Ibid, 702.
[90] Westacre Investments Ltd v Jugoimport-SDPR Holding Co Ltd [1999] 3 All ER 864, 887–88, per Mantell and Hirst LJJ.
[91] Ibid, 887.
[92] Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd v National Bank of Pakistan [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 223.
[93] Resort Condominiums International Inc v Bolwell (1993) 111 ALR 655, 680.
[94] KS AG v CC SA, 20 YB Com Arb 762, 763–64 (Execution and Bankruptcy Chamber, Canton
Tessin, Switzerland, 1995).
[95] Seller (Nationality not indicated) v Buyer (Nationality not indicated), 17 YB Com Arb 503, 505 (Federal Supreme Court, Germany, 1992).
[96] German (FR) Charterer v Romanian Shipowner, 12 YB Com Arb 489, 491 (Federal Supreme Court, Germany, 1987).
[97] See Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Société Generale de L'Industrie Du Papier (RAKTA)[1974] USCA2 836; , 508 F 2d 969, 977 (2nd Cir, 1974), citing a dictum in Wilko v Swan, [1953] USSC 112; 346 US 427 (2nd Cir, 1953). Its invocation in the Parsons case was unproductive. See also Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons, WLL v TOYS 'R' US Inc (HK)[1997] USCA2 518; , 126 F 3d 15 (2nd Cir, 1997), where the manifest disregard of the law defence was unsuccessfully invoked in a case governed by the New York Convention.
[98] 517 F Supp 948 (SD Ohio, 1981).
[99] Fertiliser Corp of India v IDI Management Inc, 517 F Supp 948, 962 (SD Ohio, 1981).