This is a past event
International Arbitration Awards: Enforceability and Public Policy: a Recipe for Uncertainty?
Abstract
Summary
- New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Article V(2). The only grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement. “Contrary to the public policy” of that country of the enforcement court. The predominant doctrine of the finality of awards.
- The doctrine of finality in contest with the public policy of the unenforceability of illegal contracts.
Westacre Investments Inc. v Jugoimport SPDR Holding Co Ltd [1999] QB 740. (English Commercial Court and Court of Appeal) (Award finds contract not illegal under its proper law or the award law).
- Where the award finds illegality but holds it to be irrelevant to the issue referred under Jewish Law.
Soleimany v. Soleimany [1999] QB 785 (English Court of Appeal).
- The public policy of adherence to constitutional requirement of legislation to create an exception to revenue laws:
BCB Holdings Ltd and Belize Bank v. AG of Belize [2013] CCJ 5(AJ)
- Extreme parochial ambit of public policy:
USA Productions v. Women Travel [1997] 35 SPC 26.12.97 (Supreme People’s Court of China)
- Public policy defined to include adherence to Rome Treaty:
Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Bennetton International NV ECR 1999 p1-03055 (European Court). Refusal of court of member state to enforce award based on failure to comply with Article 85(101) Rome Treaty.
- Public policy must be consistent with legislation of the enforcement state:
X1 and X2 v. Y1 and Y2 [2015] (DIFC Court, Dubai: 29.7.2015) Public policy cannot be defined by reference to shari’ah legal principles which are inconsistent with enacted laws.
- Speaker
- Sir Anthony Colman
- Hosted by
- School of law
- Venue
- New Kings NK3