Ecuador V. Occidental Exploration & Petroleum Company
| Autor | Commecial Court, England |
| Páginas | 66-67 |
R
R
Re
e
ev
v
vi
i
is
s
st
t
ta
a
a
L
L
La
a
at
t
ti
i
in
n
no
o
oa
a
am
m
me
e
er
r
ri
i
ic
c
ca
a
an
n
na
a
a
d
d
de
e
e
M
M
Me
e
ed
d
di
i
ia
a
ac
c
ci
i
ió
ó
ón
n
n
y
y
y
A
A
Ar
r
rb
b
bi
i
it
t
tr
r
ra
a
aj
j
je
e
e,
,,
2
2
20
0
00
0
05
5
5,
,,
N
N
Nú
ú
úm
m
me
e
er
r
ro
o
o
1
1
1
–
–
–-
-
-66–
–
–-
-
-
17. Ss. 100 and following of the Arbitration Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act") provide for
the recognition and enforcement of New York Convention Awards. There is an important
policy interest, reflected in this country's treaty obligations, in ensuring the effective and
speedy enforcement of such international arbitration awards; the corollary, however, is
that the task of the enforcing court should be as "mechanistic" as possible. Save in
connection with the threshold requirements for enforcement and the exhaustive grounds
on which enforcement of a New York Convention award may be refused (ss. 102-103 of
the 1996 Act), the enforcing court is neither entitled nor bound to go behind the award in
question, explore the reasoning of the arbitration tribunal or second-guess its intentions.
Additionally, the enforcing court seeks to ensure that an award is carried out by making
available its own domestic law sanctions. It is against this background that Issue (I) falls
to be considered.
[25] I would allow the appeal and grant to the appellant the relief sought in its notice of motion,
supra para. 12, but with some modification of the second paragraph. I would fix 60 rather than 30
days as the time for taking steps in England and, rather than providing for the money in court to
be paid out at the expiration of that period should no steps be taken, would provide that World
Link (H.K.) would then be at liberty to apply in the Supreme Court for payment out of the
security.
[26] I would allow the appeal accordingly.
"The Honourable Mr. Justice Esson"
I agree:
"The Honourable Madam Justice Saunders"
I agree:
"The Honourable Mr. Justice Oppal"
Signed: April 6, 2005
Ecuador v. Occidental Exploration & Petroleum Company
Commecial Court, England
Ecuador v. Occidental Exploration & Petroleum Company,
[2005] EWHC 774 (Comm).
Ecuador challenged an award rendered under the UNCITRAL Rules in London between the
Parties on the ground that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and that there were serious
irregularities as to the procedure. The legal question was if an English Court would have
jurisdiction to scrutinize a BIT arbitration award.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba