An award you cannot enforce
We are regularly asked to enforce awards obtained elsewhere against respondents who have nothing reachable. The work should have been done at the outset.
Filed under
Arbitration
Published
Reading time
7 min
Written by
Amir Sadeghi
Written by
Amir Sadeghi
Called 1994 · Silk 2011
Every note is written by the partner who would run the matter, not by a marketing team.
Put a matter to us
Put a matter to us
Put a matter to us
In short
Plan enforcement before serving the notice, not after the award.
The City at dusk — where most of our arbitration counterparties are incorporated
The City at dusk — where most of our arbitration counterparties are incorporated
Enforcement is treated as the final stage of an arbitration. It should be the first question asked, because it determines whether the reference is worth commencing at all.
Before a notice is served we want to know where the respondent’s assets sit, which of those jurisdictions will enforce a New York Convention award without a fight, and whether the corporate structure between the counterparty and its assets is likely to survive scrutiny.
Some of that work is unglamorous — corporate registries, security filings, and asset tracing in places that publish very little. It is considerably cheaper than an award nobody will pay.
Where the answer is that enforcement will be difficult, that is not a reason to abandon the claim. It is a reason to plan for security, or for a settlement structure that does not depend on a court in an unhelpful jurisdiction.
Choosing the tribunal
The arbitrator who suits a technical construction dispute is rarely the right choice for a shareholder dispute conducted in bad faith. The appointment is close to irreversible, and it shapes everything that follows — procedural timetable, appetite for interim relief, and how a tribunal reacts to obstruction.
Seat and clause
Seat, governing law and the drafting of the clause itself decide more than the pleadings do. Where we are instructed before a dispute crystallises, the cheapest work we ever do is reading the clause and explaining what it will mean when it is used.
Challenging an award
Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act are narrower than clients hope. Substantive jurisdiction, serious irregularity causing substantial injustice, and a point of law — none of them is a general appeal on the merits, and tribunals are given considerable latitude.
We will tell you which of the three is genuinely open and what it costs. More often the advice is that the award should be enforced rather than fought.
An award against a respondent with no reachable assets is an expensive piece of paper.
This note is general information, not advice on your matter. The facts change the answer, which is what the first conversation is for.
More from the journal
Civil Fraud
6 min
What a freezing order actually costs
The application is the cheap part. The cross-undertaking in damages is what should decide whether you bring it.
Read the note
Practice
4 min
What we do in the first meeting
Thirty minutes, no charge, and a partner. What we are actually listening for, and why we sometimes say don’t.
Read the note
Commercial Litigation
8 min
Disclosure decides it more often than argument
The case you can run is rarely the case described in the first meeting. It is the one the documents will support.
Read the note
An award you cannot enforce
We are regularly asked to enforce awards obtained elsewhere against respondents who have nothing reachable. The work should have been done at the outset.
Filed under
Arbitration
Published
Reading time
7 min
Written by
Amir Sadeghi
Written by
Amir Sadeghi
Called 1994 · Silk 2011
Every note is written by the partner who would run the matter, not by a marketing team.
Put a matter to us
Put a matter to us
Put a matter to us
In short
Plan enforcement before serving the notice, not after the award.
The City at dusk — where most of our arbitration counterparties are incorporated
The City at dusk — where most of our arbitration counterparties are incorporated
Enforcement is treated as the final stage of an arbitration. It should be the first question asked, because it determines whether the reference is worth commencing at all.
Before a notice is served we want to know where the respondent’s assets sit, which of those jurisdictions will enforce a New York Convention award without a fight, and whether the corporate structure between the counterparty and its assets is likely to survive scrutiny.
Some of that work is unglamorous — corporate registries, security filings, and asset tracing in places that publish very little. It is considerably cheaper than an award nobody will pay.
Where the answer is that enforcement will be difficult, that is not a reason to abandon the claim. It is a reason to plan for security, or for a settlement structure that does not depend on a court in an unhelpful jurisdiction.
Choosing the tribunal
The arbitrator who suits a technical construction dispute is rarely the right choice for a shareholder dispute conducted in bad faith. The appointment is close to irreversible, and it shapes everything that follows — procedural timetable, appetite for interim relief, and how a tribunal reacts to obstruction.
Seat and clause
Seat, governing law and the drafting of the clause itself decide more than the pleadings do. Where we are instructed before a dispute crystallises, the cheapest work we ever do is reading the clause and explaining what it will mean when it is used.
Challenging an award
Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act are narrower than clients hope. Substantive jurisdiction, serious irregularity causing substantial injustice, and a point of law — none of them is a general appeal on the merits, and tribunals are given considerable latitude.
We will tell you which of the three is genuinely open and what it costs. More often the advice is that the award should be enforced rather than fought.
An award against a respondent with no reachable assets is an expensive piece of paper.
This note is general information, not advice on your matter. The facts change the answer, which is what the first conversation is for.
More from the journal
Civil Fraud
6 min
What a freezing order actually costs
The application is the cheap part. The cross-undertaking in damages is what should decide whether you bring it.
Read the note
Practice
4 min
What we do in the first meeting
Thirty minutes, no charge, and a partner. What we are actually listening for, and why we sometimes say don’t.
Read the note
Commercial Litigation
8 min
Disclosure decides it more often than argument
The case you can run is rarely the case described in the first meeting. It is the one the documents will support.
Read the note
An award you cannot enforce
We are regularly asked to enforce awards obtained elsewhere against respondents who have nothing reachable. The work should have been done at the outset.
Filed under
Arbitration
Published
Reading time
7 min
Written by
Amir Sadeghi
Written by
Amir Sadeghi
Called 1994 · Silk 2011
Every note is written by the partner who would run the matter, not by a marketing team.
Put a matter to us
Put a matter to us
Put a matter to us
In short
Plan enforcement before serving the notice, not after the award.
The City at dusk — where most of our arbitration counterparties are incorporated
The City at dusk — where most of our arbitration counterparties are incorporated
Enforcement is treated as the final stage of an arbitration. It should be the first question asked, because it determines whether the reference is worth commencing at all.
Before a notice is served we want to know where the respondent’s assets sit, which of those jurisdictions will enforce a New York Convention award without a fight, and whether the corporate structure between the counterparty and its assets is likely to survive scrutiny.
Some of that work is unglamorous — corporate registries, security filings, and asset tracing in places that publish very little. It is considerably cheaper than an award nobody will pay.
Where the answer is that enforcement will be difficult, that is not a reason to abandon the claim. It is a reason to plan for security, or for a settlement structure that does not depend on a court in an unhelpful jurisdiction.
Choosing the tribunal
The arbitrator who suits a technical construction dispute is rarely the right choice for a shareholder dispute conducted in bad faith. The appointment is close to irreversible, and it shapes everything that follows — procedural timetable, appetite for interim relief, and how a tribunal reacts to obstruction.
Seat and clause
Seat, governing law and the drafting of the clause itself decide more than the pleadings do. Where we are instructed before a dispute crystallises, the cheapest work we ever do is reading the clause and explaining what it will mean when it is used.
Challenging an award
Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act are narrower than clients hope. Substantive jurisdiction, serious irregularity causing substantial injustice, and a point of law — none of them is a general appeal on the merits, and tribunals are given considerable latitude.
We will tell you which of the three is genuinely open and what it costs. More often the advice is that the award should be enforced rather than fought.
An award against a respondent with no reachable assets is an expensive piece of paper.
This note is general information, not advice on your matter. The facts change the answer, which is what the first conversation is for.
More from the journal
Civil Fraud
6 min
What a freezing order actually costs
The application is the cheap part. The cross-undertaking in damages is what should decide whether you bring it.
Read the note
Practice
4 min
What we do in the first meeting
Thirty minutes, no charge, and a partner. What we are actually listening for, and why we sometimes say don’t.
Read the note
Commercial Litigation
8 min
Disclosure decides it more often than argument
The case you can run is rarely the case described in the first meeting. It is the one the documents will support.
Read the note