Enforcement: Hilmarton, Chromoley, Putrabali

An ICC award made in Algiers in favour of a US corporation was declared enforceable in Belgium, despite having been declared invalid by the Court of Appeal in Algiers.(Sonatrach v Ford Bacon Davis Inc (1990) XV Ybk Comm Arb 370.) . In the celebrated Hilmarton case (where the claim had been dismissed on the basis that the contract was obtained by corruption and was unenforceable), the French court again recognised the Swiss award, despite the fact that it had been set aside by the Swiss court and that a new tribunal (which reached a different conclusion) had been established.

In Chromalloya District Court in the US granted enforcement of an award made in Cairo, even though it had been set aside by the Court page of Appeal in Cairo on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had failed to apply the law agreed by the parties to the subject-matter of the dispute. The court pointed out that, while Article V gave it a discretion to decline to enforce an award that had been set aside by the courts of the place of arbitration, Article VII required it not to deprive Chromalloy of more favourable provisions in the law of the enforcement State. The French court also granted enforcement of the same award in 1997,following which it appears that payment was made. ( Decision of 14 January 1997 (1997) 12(4) Intl Arb Rep B-1.)

This position was further affirmed in France in the context of the Putrabali decisions.The Cour de Cassation stated: ‘pursuant to Article VII of the New York Convention … [the claimant]'s request in France for recognition was admissible and it could rely on the French rules of international arbitration which do not include a foreign setting aside of the award among the cases of denial of recognition.’

Source:Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration