Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    Clout Case 384

    Uploaded by

    canyoumoveme
    The document summarizes two court cases from Ontario, Canada regarding the enforcement of international arbitration awards: 1) In the first case, the court refused to stay court proceedings despite an arbitration at the ICC, finding there was no agreement to arbitrate between the parties. It agreed with the arbitral tribunal that the claimant had met notice requirements under the Model Law by using all known addresses of the defendant. 2) In the second case, the court rejected the defendant's objection to enforcing a New York arbitral award in Ontario, stating that confirmation under New York law only related to enforcement in New York, not Ontario. The award was enforceable under the Model Law. The case involved an international agreement referring to Russian

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Clout Case 384

    Uploaded by

    canyoumoveme
    98 views1 page
    The document summarizes two court cases from Ontario, Canada regarding the enforcement of international arbitration awards: 1) In the first case, the court refused to stay court proceedings despite an arbitration at the ICC, finding there was no agreement to arbitrate between the parties. It agreed with the arbitral tribunal that the claimant had met notice requirements under the Model Law by using all known addresses of the defendant. 2) In the second case, the court rejected the defendant's objection to enforcing a New York arbitral award in Ontario, stating that confirmation under New York law only related to enforcement in New York, not Ontario. The award was enforceable under the Model Law. The case involved an international agreement referring to Russian

    Original Description:

    Clout Case 384

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes two court cases from Ontario, Canada regarding the enforcement of international arbitration awards: 1) In the first case, the court refused to stay court proceedings despite an arbitration at the ICC, finding there was no agreement to arbitrate between the parties. It agreed with the arbitral tribunal that the claimant had met notice requirements under the Model Law by using all known addresses of the defendant. 2) In the second case, the court rejected the defendant's objection to enforcing a New York arbitral award in Ontario, stating that confirmation under New York law only related to enforcement in New York, not Ontario. The award was enforceable under the Model Law. The case involved an international agreement referring to Russian

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    98 views1 page

    Clout Case 384

    Uploaded by

    canyoumoveme
    The document summarizes two court cases from Ontario, Canada regarding the enforcement of international arbitration awards: 1) In the first case, the court refused to stay court proceedings despite an arbitration at the ICC, finding there was no agreement to arbitrate between the parties. It agreed with the arbitral tribunal that the claimant had met notice requirements under the Model Law by using all known addresses of the defendant. 2) In the second case, the court rejected the defendant's objection to enforcing a New York arbitral award in Ontario, stating that confirmation under New York law only related to enforcement in New York, not Ontario. The award was enforceable under the Model Law. The case involved an international agreement referring to Russian

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    A/CN.9/SER.

    C/ABSTRACTS/34
    Court concluded that there was no agreement to arbitrate included in the agreement between the parties, he
    refused to order a stay of proceedings despite the existence of the arbitral proceedings at the I.C.C.
    Case 384: MAL 3
    Canada: Ontario Court of Justice - General Division (Gray J.)
    April 26, 1991
    Skorimpex Foreign Trade Co. v. Lelovic Co.
    Original in English
    Published in English: [1991] O.J. No. 641
    Skorimpex, a Polish state trading company and Lelovic Co., a Canadian importer based in Ontario,
    have been dealing with each other since 1957. Lelovic Co. purchased men's and women's footwear
    manufactured in Poland.
    Following a dispute between the parties, an arbitration was undertaken and an award rendered in
    Skorimpexs favour. Lelovic objected to the enforcement of the award in Ontario on the ground that it had not
    received notice of the arbitration procedure. Skorimpex replied that it had taken all reasonable steps to notify
    Lelovic, in accordance with art. 3 of the Model Law.
    The Arbitrators held that notices had been sent to Lelovic Co. at three addresses and that Skorimpex
    had made a reasonable inquiry as to Lelovics address and had used all known addresses. As a result, the
    arbitration proceeded in the absence of the defendant.
    The court agreed that the requirements of art. 3 of the Model Law had been met on the issue and
    agreed with the finding of the arbitral tribunal that the claimant used all addresses known.
    Case 385: MAL 35, 36
    Canada: Ontario Court of Justice - General Division (Somers J.)
    December 19, 1994.
    Murmansk Trawl Fleet v. Bimman Realty Inc.
    Original in English
    Published in English: [1994] O.J. No. 3018
    Murmansk Trawl Fleet and Bimman Realty entered into an agreement for the processing of fish skins
    into a leather product. The case does not specify the origins of the parties but their contracts refers to the
    Russian and English texts of their agreement thereby indicating the international nature of their relationship. A
    dispute arose between the parties and an arbitral award was rendered in New York against Bimman.
    Murmansk sought enforcement in Ontario but Bimman objected, citing art. 36 of the MAL. Bimman
    claimed that the award was not binding in New York as it had not been confirmed by a New York court in
    accordance with state or federal law.
    The Court rejected this argument given that confirmation under New York law related only to enforcement in
    New York. Enforcement in Ontario was governed by the MAL and not New York state law. An order for the
    enforcement of the New York arbitral award was made.

    You might also like