GAR (Global Arbitration Review) is the world's leading international arbitration journal and news service. GAR provides breaking news, daily updates and in-depth monthly features covering international arbitration in countries around the world. GAR also features guest commentary and articles from the world's leading international arbitration practitioners.
The High Court recently declined to lift a stay of the hearing of an application for the enforcement, under the Arbitration Act 1996, of certain arbitral awards and a related jurisdictional objection by the respondent (Russia) on grounds of sovereign immunity. Among other things, a court's powers under the Arbitration Act to order an adjournment of proceedings and the payment of security are not applicable where there is an unresolved state immunity challenge under the State Immunity Act.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In its recent decision in (1) Hulley Enterprises Limited, (2) Yukos Universal Limited, (3) Veteran Petroleum Limited v The Russian Federation,
1 the High Court concluded that where a party has challenged the jurisdiction of the court under the State Immunity Act 1978 ( the SIA ), the English courts do not have the power under s103(5) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Arbitration Act ) to order an adjournment of or grant security in aid of proceedings for recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Henshaw reaffirmed the well-established principle that state immunity is a preliminary issue, which must be decided before any other issues in the case. He clarified that any exercise of powers under s103(5) would constitute the assertion of adjudicative jurisdiction over a state in circumstances where the court has not yet determined such jurisdiction to exist.