||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 15 (Jan)
|| EWHC 9 (Comm)
Nigel Teare QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge
||Michael Bools (instructed by Norton Rose) for the claimant.
||Timothy Saloman QC (instructed by Barlow Lyde and Gilbert) for the first defendant.
||11 January 2005
Arbitration - Award - Enforcement - Foreign arbitration award - Discretion - Issue estoppel - , s 103.
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.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary