Latest News
Supreme Court of Pakistan Reforms Framework for Foreign Arbitral Awards
Supreme Court of Pakistan Reforms Framework for Foreign Arbitral Awards
Historical Background:
The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Pakistan have historically been fraught with legal complexities. Under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Foreign Arbitral Awards and Arbitration Agreements) Act of 2011 ("2011 Act"), parties were required to apply to the respective provincial High Court. However, inconsistent judgments complicated this seemingly straightforward process, creating a murky legal landscape.
The Taisei Corporation Case:
A pivotal case in this context involved Taisei Corporation and A.M. Construction Company (AMCC). In 2011, an arbitral tribunal in Singapore issued an award in favour of Taisei. AMCC challenged this award in a Lahore Civil Court under the Arbitration Act of 1940 ("1940 Act"), arguing it was a domestic award subject to local jurisdiction. Taisei contended that the 2011 Act provided exclusive jurisdiction to High Courts for foreign awards. The Lahore Civil Court, followed by the Lahore High Court, sided with AMCC, treating the ICC Award as a domestic award. This interpretation was based on the governing law of the underlying subcontract being Pakistani law. In contrast, the Sindh High Court declared the award a foreign one, enforceable only under the 2011 Act, prompting further appeals to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment:
In February 2024, the Supreme Court, led by Mr Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, consolidated proceedings from both High Courts to address the core issues. The judgment was a significant step in aligning Pakistan's arbitration practices with international standards.
Pro-Enforcement Presumption:
Justice Shah adopted the pro-enforcement presumption from the New York Convention of 1958. This presumption favours the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards unless specific grounds for refusal exist. This move aims to bolster investor confidence in Pakistan by ensuring that foreign awards are generally upheld.
Determination of Foreign Awards:
A crucial aspect of the judgment was the determination that the ICC Award was indeed a foreign award. The seat of arbitration, in this case, Singapore, was the deciding factor, not the governing law of the contract. This territorial approach aligns with international practices and overturns previous inconsistent rulings, including the notable Hitachi v. Rupali decision.
Retrospective Applicability of the 2011 Act:
Justice Shah clarified that the 2011 Act applies retrospectively to all foreign awards made from July 14, 2005, the date when Pakistan ratified the New York Convention. This ensures a consistent legal framework for all relevant awards, providing clarity and legal certainty.
Implications of the Judgment:
The Supreme Court's decision nullifies the Lahore Court's judgments and upholds the Sindh High Court's ruling. It reinforces that challenges to foreign arbitral awards can only be made under the procedural law of the arbitration's seat or through objections under Article V of the New York Convention. This limits unnecessary domestic court interventions and supports a pro-enforcement environment essential for fostering investor confidence.
Future Prospects:
This landmark judgment sets a clear precedent for future cases, reducing legal uncertainties and the potential for conflicting judgments. It positions Pakistan as a more attractive venue for arbitration and the enforcement of arbitral awards. By endorsing the principles of the New York Convention, Pakistan signals its commitment to upholding international arbitration standards, enhancing its global commercial dispute resolution standing.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan's recent judgment marks a pivotal moment in the country's legal history, significantly reforming the framework for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards. By aligning Pakistan's practices with international standards and adopting the pro-enforcement presumption, the court has created a more reliable and investor-friendly legal environment. This judgment resolves longstanding ambiguities and sets a clear path for the future of arbitration in Pakistan, promoting international trade and investment, and contributing to the country's economic growth.
- The seat of arbitration, in this case, Singapore, was the deciding factor, not the governing law of the contract.
- The Supreme Court's decision nullifies the Lahore Courts' judgments and upholds the Sindh High Court's ruling.
- This landmark judgment sets a clear precedent for future cases, reducing legal uncertainties and potential for conflicting judgments.
