Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 15 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2005] EWHC 9 (Comm)
Court: Commercial Court
Judge:

Nigel Teare QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge

Representation Michael Bools (instructed by Norton Rose) for the claimant.
  Timothy Saloman QC (instructed by Barlow Lyde and Gilbert) for the first defendant.
Judgment Dates: 11 January 2005

Catchwords

Arbitration - Award - Enforcement - Foreign arbitration award - Discretion - Issue estoppel - , s 103.

The Case

Since the introduction of the it had been recognised that a person who had taken part in arbitration proceedings for the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, and who lost that argument and then failed to avail himself of a right to challenge the award, could not object later to the tribunal's jurisdiction on any ground that was the subject of that ruling. The instant case was an appropriate one in which to exercise the discretion conferred by s103(2) to recognise an arbitration award by permitting the claimant to rely on it in defence of the defendant Lithuanian government's claim to set aside the proceedings. However, it could not be said that the decision of the tribunal in the instant case finally and conclusively determined that the government of Lithuania was a party to the arbitration agreement, having regard to Danish law.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.