A jurisdictional comparison
Finality and ease of enforcement of arbitral awards have long been considered a major advantage of international arbitration. At the same time, it is also recognized that challenges to awards must be allowed in some circumstances (eg where the award is procured by fraud) to avoid injustice, in which case intervention by the supervisory court will be both warranted and necessary.
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. About 172 countries are party to the New York Convention.
Most New York Convention jurisdictions tend to adopt a ‘pro-arbitration’ policy, while still allowing arbitral awards to be challenged on certain limited grounds (such as conflict with public policy) and only on those limited grounds.
Two recent decisions from Convention jurisdictions have provided a useful illustration of the interaction between, on the one hand, the finality of arbitral awards and, on the other hand, the duties and powers of supervisory courts: (i) G -v- N [2023] HKCFI 3366; and (ii) Sodzawiczny -v- Smith [2024] EWHC 231 (Comm).
The Hong Kong Decision
In the Hong Kong Decision, the Court of First Instance of Hong Kong (HK Court) remitted an award arising from a Hong Kong seated arbitration back to the arbitration tribunal (HK Tribunal) for re-consideration.
Background
