Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:40:18.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

V. Recognition of Arbitral Awards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Extract

A number of issues relating to the finality of arbitration awards in the face of arguments based on public and fraud were addressed by the Court of Appeal in Westacre Investments Inc. v. Jugoimport—SDRP Holding Co. Ltd.20 The claimant had obtained an arbitration award in its favour in Switzerland which it was seeking to enforce in England. The dispute referred to arbitration concerned a claim for payment of commission. The commission was due under a contract through which the claimant assisted the defendant to obtain a contract for the supply of military equipment to Kuwait. It was alleged in the English proceedings that this contract was invalid since the commission payment in fact amounted to a bribe to a member of the Kuwaiti government. The issue of bribery had been raised before the Swiss arbitral tribunal, but the majority of the tribunal found that they were not required to investigate this issue if the parties led no evidence to prove that it had taken place. The contract between the parties was therefore found valid and binding. An appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal was lodged by the defendant for an annulment of the arbitral award. The Federal Tribunal concluded that the nature of its competence to review arbitral proceedings required it to base its decision on the facts found by the Tribunal. It therefore confirmed the award. The defendants then tried to raise the same bribery issue in the enforcement proceedings in England.

Type
Current Developments: Private International Law
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

20. [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 65.Google Scholar

21. See Lemenda Trading Co. Ltd v. African Middle East Petroleum Co. Ltd [1988] 1 Q.B. 448.Google Scholar

22. Ibid.

23. [1882] 10 Q.B.D. 295.Google Scholar

24. [1992] 2 A.C. 443.Google Scholar

25. [1998] W.L.R. 811.Google Scholar