About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

11 J. Int'l Arb. 119 (1994)
The Interpretation of Section 5(2)(b) of the English Arbitration Act 1975

handle is hein.kluwer/jia0011 and id is 265 raw text is: The Interpretation of Section 5(2)(b) of the English Arbitration Act 1975 Morten P. BROBERG* England is one of the centres of arbitration and the English Arbitration Acts are therefore of importance to all those engaged in arbitration there. It is well known that the New York Convention has laid down a principle according to which Contracting States recognise arbitral awards as binding and enforce these awards.' It is equally well known that the New York Convention, in Article V, provides a number ofdefences which might be invoked by the party against whom a Convention award is sought to be recognised and enforced. In the light of a House of Lords judgment, this article will examine the likely interpretation under English law of one of these defences; namely the defence in Article V(1)(a) in fine of the Convention.2 In 1991, the House of Lords handed down its judgment in the case Hiscox v. Outhwaite3 concerning the correct interpretation of the term made with regard to the place where the Convention award was made in Section 5(2)((04 and (5)5 of the Arbitration Act 1975. The judgment was immediately criticised as laying down an incorrect interpretation.' The facts of the case were very simple. Members of two Lloyd's syndicates had referred their dispute, concerning a reinsurance contract governed by English law, to arbitration in London. An arbitrator was appointed and the arbitration was held in London and conducted in accordance with English law and practice. The arbitrator finally issued his final interim award and explicitly signed and dated it in Paris. The losing party, the claimants, applied inter alia for leave to appeal under Section 1(3) of the Arbitration Act 1975. The respondent objected that the award was a Convention award since it had been signed in Paris and not in England. Therefore, in the respondent's view, the claimant's application for supervision by the English court should be defeated. In short the central question was whether the term made in Section 5(2)(f) and -B.A. in Law (Copenhagen); LL.M. (Bristol); Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. I See Article IIl of the New York Convention. 2 Section 5(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1975. 1199113 W.L.R. 297. The equivalent to Article V(I)(e) ofthe New York Convention. The equivalent to Article VI of the New York Convention. See C. Reymond, Whaere is an Arbitral Award Made? 108 Law Quarterly Review, 1992, p. 1, and the late Dr F.A. Mann, Foreign Awards, 108 Law Quarterly Review, 1992, p. 6. V.S. Deshpande has commented on the case in his article Foreign Award in the 1958 New York Convention, 9 J.Int.Arb.4, December 1992, p. 51, at pp. 54-55; see also the same author's article Article V. I (e) of the 1958 New York Con venion-A Plea for Harnonious and Purposive Interpretation, 8J.Int.Arb.3, September 1991, p. 77. Copyright © 2007 by Kluwer Law International. All rights reserved. No claim asserted to original government works.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most