Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
On 21 January 2014, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed an application seeking partial annulment of an ICC award on grounds of excess of mandate and breach of due process. The court's decision underscores its continued policy of non-interference with the underlying merits of disputes and consistent interpretation of the limited available grounds for annulment of arbitral awards pursuant to art 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. This article was written by Samuel Pape and Geoffroy Goubin, associates at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
As examined below, the decision is a timely reminder of the Paris Court of Appeal's strict interpretation of the grounds for annulment of arbitral awards under art 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) and consistent refusal to accede to applicants' attempts to have the underlying merits of awards reconsidered under the guise of art 1520 challenges.
While the decision will be of particular interest to practitioners in relation to arbitrations seated in Paris and related challenges, the grounds for annulment considered by the decision (excess of mandate and breach of due process) are also reflected in art 34(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and feature in the domestic arbitration laws of many of the most popular arbitral seats. While the interpretation of these grounds in any given jurisdiction is matter of domestic law, the Paris Court of Appeal's decision confirms the general, pro-arbitration, trend that such grounds are viewed increasingly restrictively.
The underlying arbitration (seated in Paris) arose out of the acquisition by General Motors (GM) of the auto-motive division of Daewoo Motor Co Ltd (Daewoo) in 2002. Under the terms of this transaction, certain pre-acquisition liabilities relating, among other things, to vehicle recalls and third party claims were excluded. Daewoo agreed to indemnify GM for such liabilities and placed into escrow US$ 115 million, as well as US$ 100 million worth of shares. These funds and shares were to serve as the sole source of indemnification under the relevant agreement.
GM commenced arbitration seeking indemnification for various liabilities, while also seeking expressly to reserve for a future arbitration certain further claims for indemnification that it considered not yet ripe. Daewoo defended against GM's asserted claims and put forward a counter-claim requesting that the tribunal order the release of all remaining funds and shares held in escrow.
The tribunal dismissed some of GM's claims, but found in GM's favour with respect to others and unreservedly granted Daewoo's counterclaim, such that GM was ordered to co-operate with Daewoo to procure the return of the remaining sums and shares held in escrow.
Seeking partial annulment of the award before the Paris Court of Appeal, GM contended that the tribunal had exceeded its mandate (a ground for annulment under art 1520(3) of the Code) by rendering an award containing a contradiction between its reasoning and the dispositive section of the award. Specifically, GM argued that while the award recognised GM's reservation of certain further claims for indemnification for a future arbitration, it ordered the release of the sums and shares held in escrow despite the fact that such sums and shares were, as a matter of contractual requirement, the only available sources of compensation for any such future claims.
Separately and also under art 1520(3) of the Code, GM argued that the tribunal had exceeded its mandate by ruling, by implication or effect, on GM's reserved claims and that such ruling was beyond the scope of the tribunal's mandate.
In summary, rejecting GM's arguments under art 1520(3), the court reasoned that:
GM also sought partial annulment of the award on the basis that by ordering the return of the sums and shares held in escrow, the tribunal had effectively ruled upon the reserved claims and had done so in violation of GM's rights of due process by not affording GM any opportunity to be heard in relation to such claims (art 1520(4) of the Code).
The court also rejected this ground for annulment, reasoning that:
The court awarded Daewoo an award of EUR 100,000 in costs pursuant to art 700 of the Code. This amount is among the largest ever awarded by the Court of Appeal in proceedings of this nature.
The application was heard in the Paris Court of Appeal on 3 December 2013 and judgment was rendered by President Acquaviva and Appellate Judges Guihal and Dallery on 21 January 2014.
Samuel Pape and Geoffroy Goubin are associates at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Arbitration on 21 February 2014. Click here for a free trial of Lexis®PSL.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234