The Significance of Foreign Judgments Relating to an Arbitral Award in the Context of an Application to Enforce the Award in England

Author： Hill Jonathan

Publisher： Hart Publishing

ISSN： 1744-1048

Source： Journal of Private International Law, Vol.8, Iss.2, 2012-08, pp. : 159-193

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

After an arbitral award has been rendered, various types of legal proceedings may ensue. The award-debtor may take the initiative and seek to have the award set aside (typically, by the courts of the seat) and/or the award-creditor may apply to have award enforced either at the seat of arbitration or in another county (or other countries). The possibility for multiple proceedings involving the same (or very similar) issues and the potential for conflicting judgments are obvious. This article examines, in the context of an application to enforce a foreign award in England under the New York Convention of 1958, the significance of a prior judgment of a foreign court relating to the award (whether confirming or enforcing the award or setting it aside). To what extent does the doctrine of res judicata (and related principles) prevent the parties from re-opening in English enforcement proceedings matters already determined by a foreign court in earlier proceedings relating to the award?