A recent ruling of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of First Instance (see Case No. XX – (1) X1 (2) X2 v. (1) Y1 (2) Y2, ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance of 29 July 2015) brings into relief the question as to whether the role of the DIFC Courts as…

By Order of 11 May 2015 (unpublished) in Case No. ARB 005/2014 – A v. B, Justice Sir David Steel of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of First Instance dismissed an application made by an award debtor to set aside an order granted by the DIFC Court on 8 January 2015 (unpublished) for…

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and should not be regarded as representative of, or binding upon ArbitralWomen and/or the author’s law firm. Taiwan is not a signatory to the New York Convention owning to its subtle status. To enforce a mainland China’s award or civil judgment in Taiwan,…

In a recent ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance (CFI 043/2014 – DNB Bank ASA v. (1) Gulf Eyadah Corporation (2) Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC, ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance of 2nd July 2015), H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani, one of the UAE-national resident judges of the DIFC Courts, drew…

By an order of late last year (ARB 002/2014 – A v. B, Order of Justice Sir David Steel of 16 December 2014), Justice Sir David Steel dismissed an application by an award debtor seeking a number of orders to avoid the recognition and enforcement of an award rendered by the Dubai International Arbitration Centre…

Attentive readers of this Blog will remember that the Court of Appeal of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) adopted a ruling in the latter half of last year confirming its status as a “host” or “intermediate” – or, in the Court’s own words, “conduit” – jurisdiction for the enforcement of domestic arbitration awards rendered…

and Paul Tan, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Short answer: Yes for some actions, but not all. Here is why. The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) was launched in January 2015 and provides litigants with the benefits of court proceedings and international arbitration without the constraints and setbacks of either option. Thus far, murmurs of…

Regular readers of this Blog will be aware of the DIFC Court’s adoption of Practice Direction No. 2 of 2015 on the Referral of Payment Judgment Disputes to Arbitration (“PD 2 of 2015”) earlier this year (for contemporaneous reporting see my previous blog). As the title of the Direction suggests, it essentially allows judgment creditors…

On May 26, 2015, Brazil signed its third investment treaty of 2015 with Mexico. Given the agreements previously signed with Angola and Mozambique, this certainly comes as a confirmation of a new Brazilian attitude towards the regulation of foreign investment. The instrument mostly follows the same model used for the previous two: a Cooperation and…

Co-Authored with Karyna Loban (Sysouev, Bondar, Khrapoutski) On 23 December 2014, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus adopted Resolution No 18 “On the Application of Legislation on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Foreign Arbitral Awards” (“Resolution No 18”). By adopting Resolution No 18, the Resolution No 10…

The Dubai Court of Cassation stays firmly on course in its enforcement of foreign arbitration awards under the 1958 New York Convention for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (NYC) and hence keeps consolidating its pro-NYC enforcement practice. This has most recently been demonstrated by the Court’s pro-Convention approach in Case No. 434/2014…

The DIFC Courts Practice Direction No. 2 of 2015 on the Referral of Judgment Payment Disputes to Arbitration (available online on the official website of the DIFC Courts at http://difccourts.ae/difc-courts-practice-direction-no-2-2015-referral-judgment-payment-disputes-arbitration/) was finally adopted on 16 February 2015 and is now in full force. For conceptual accuracy, the more appealing title of “Practice Direction on the…

In article 35 of the Brazilian Arbitration Law (“BAA”) it states that, in order to be enforced in Brazil, a foreign arbitral award (i.e., an award issued outside Brazil’s territory) must be recognized by the judiciary. This judicial recognition rests with the Superior Tribunal of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça – “STJ”), which retains exclusive…

The enforcement of awards following a decision at the seat remains a controversial issue in international arbitration. Should an enforcement court follow the decision of the seat court, or can the enforcement court reach a different conclusion? US courts and French courts continue to take different approaches to this issue. US courts will defer to…

In a recent ruling of the DIFC Court of Appeal (see Case CA-005-2-14, ruling of the DIFC Court of Appeal of 3rd November 2014), Justice Sir David Steel affirmed the previous ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance in Banyan Tree v. Meydan Group LLC (see Case No. ARB 003/2013 – Banyan Tree Corporate…

On September 1, 2014, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”) issued an important decision recognizing, for the first time, an unreasoned arbitral award in Newedge USA, LLC v. Manoel Fernando Garcia. Notwithstanding challenges to the recognition and enforcement on the grounds that the New York arbitral award purported violated Brazilian public policy due to…

In an order dated 28 January 2014 (file number III ZB 40/13), the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, the “Court”) clarified that an arbitral award can only be set aside in recognition or enforcement proceedings by a state court in “extremely exceptional cases”, i.e. if an award breaches the fundamental principles of the German legal…

Dr. Ileana M. Smeureanu 1)Ileana Smeureanu is an associate attorney with Jones Day (Paris). This article is based on a speech that the author gave at the ICC YAF/YAPP 6TH Joint Annual Colloquium “Young Approaches to Arbitration”, Vienna (Austria), 12 April 2014. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and…

In two recent decisions, Banyan Tree v. Meydan Group LLC (Case No. ARB 003-2013) and X1 and X2 v. Y1 and Y2 (Case No. ARB 002-2013), the DIFC Court of First Instance (H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi and Sir John Chadwick respectively) confirmed its jurisdiction to recognise and enforce within the DIFC arbitral awards rendered…

Assignment of benefits of arbitral awards is a standard business practice worldwide, undertaken by companies involved in international trade and supported by credit insurers. However, this practice may face some obstacles in Ukraine considering contradictory and poorly developed court practice of granting leave for enforcement upon an application submitted by any person other than a…