Enforcing international arbitral awards

See also: State immunity and arbitration—overview.

Introduction to recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards

Practice Note: Recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards—an introduction provides an introduction to some of the key issues for practitioners regarding the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards. It discusses: some of the considerations for award creditors post-award; where to seek enforcement, including locating the award debtor’s assets; and, the options for recognition and enforcement before domestic courts (including exequatur).

The New York Convention

This Practice Note gives information about the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), including how to make an application for recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award under the New York Convention and the limited grounds on which such an application to enforce a New York Convention award can be refused. It discusses the reciprocity and commercial reservations to the New York Convention.

For more information, see Practice Note: The New York Convention—the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards—an introduction.

Settlement in arbitration

This Practice Note covers issues surrounding settlement in arbitration,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

ADGM court’s mandatory interim relief powers prevail over LCIA Rules

Arbitration analysis: The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark decision confirming the dominance of the mandatory law of the seat over institutional arbitration rules regarding interim relief. The court allowed an appeal against the first instance court’s refusal to grant a worldwide freezing order (WFO) in support of an ADGM-seated London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration. The first instance judge refused relief because the applicants had not obtained the tribunal’s prior authorisation, which is a prerequisite under Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules (2020) once a tribunal is formed. The Court of Appeal held that mandatory statutory powers to grant interim relief cannot be displaced by institutional rules, and that a WFO may be granted despite the lack of tribunal authorisation [A30, ¶ 17]. The court found that section 31 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015, which empowers the court to grant interim measures in cases of urgency or where the tribunal cannot act effectively, is a mandatory provision [A30, ¶ 18; quoting Arbitration Regulations, section 31]. Therefore, pursuant to LCIA Article 14.2, which subjects the tribunal’s duties to mandatory laws, a party exercising a statutory right under the law of the seat does not commit a breach of the arbitration agreement [A30, ¶ 21]. This decision confirms that the ADGM Courts will intervene to preserve assets in urgent cases, reinforcing the ADGM as a high-intervention seat for protective measures. Written by Othmane Saadani, partner and Brayden Winkler, associate at Bin Sevan Advocates & Legal Consultants.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents