The Nicosia District Court recently issued an order which referred a dispute to arbitration. The order stipulated that the arbitrator should deliver a final decision within nine months. One of the parties applied to the court for an extension of the arbitration procedure. The court rejected the application on the ground that only the arbitrator had the right to apply for such an extension.
The Limassol District Court recently concluded that an appeal pending before the English courts does not suspend an order's enforcement or diminish the validity of an arbitral award. The applicants had applied for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued in May 2016. The court held that the order was final and that there had been no abuse of process; the respondents' request to set aside the award was therefore rejected.
In a recent Limassol District Court case, the applicants applied for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The respondents had previously applied to the Cypriot courts to set aside and annul the arbitral award pursuant to the International Commercial Arbitration Law. In their objection to the application for the recognition of the award, the respondents advanced additional grounds to those raised in their earlier application to annul the award.
The District Court of Limassol recently issued a judgment in relation to an application filed by the Cooperative Bank of Limassol in 2016. The applicants had sought a court order to cross-examine the affiant on certain paragraphs of his affidavit, which supported a 2014 application for the registration and enforcement of an arbitral award in Cyprus.
The applicant in a recent case applied to the Limassol District Court for the registration and enforcement of an arbitral award which had been issued by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). This case sheds light on the interpretation and application of Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention and clarifies that an arbitral award, including an award for costs, is registrable before the courts even in cases where the LCIA has no jurisdiction.
In a recent Supreme Court case, the appellants challenged a first-instance court judgment which had refused the registration and execution in Cyprus of a foreign arbitral award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court. The appellants claimed that the first-instance judge had erred in concluding that the requirement under Article IV(1)(a) of the New York Convention had not been fulfilled.
A recent Supreme Court decision concerned an application to set aside an admiralty action based on the arbitration clause in the guarantee agreement signed by the parties concerned. The court relied on the doctrine of abandonment and decided that the arbitration clause had been abandoned with the parties' consent. As a result, the defendants were estopped from claiming that they had not abandoned their right to activate the arbitration clause and their claim was dismissed.
Lukoil Mid-East Limited filed an application with the Nicosia District Court for the recognition and enforcement in Cyprus of a London Court of International Arbitration award. Terra Seis Cyprus Limited objected on the grounds that the substantive and procedural prerequisites for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in Cyprus had not been met. The court thus considered whether the requirements under Section IV of the New York Convention had been satisfied.
In a recent district court case the applicants applied to register and enforce an arbitral decision issued by the Russian International Commercial Arbitration Court. The respondents argued that recognition of the award was contrary to public policy, but this was rejected by the court. Practitioners should consider how rarely the public policy defence is used and ensure that they can prove the existence of exceptional circumstances which warrant court intervention and protection.
In a recent Nicosia District Court case the applicants applied to register and enforce a Russian International Commercial Arbitration Court arbitral award. The court examined whether the applicants had complied with the requirements of Article IV of the New York Convention. It decided that there was no ground for refusing enforcement and allowed the application for recognition and enforcement of the award in Cyprus.
In a recent district court case the applicants applied to register and enforce an arbitral award issued in their favour by the London Court of International Arbitration. The respondents objected to the registration and enforcement of the award, arguing that the principle of res judicata was applicable, as the same arbitral award had not been recognised and enforced in an earlier case before the Cypriot courts.
The Nicosia District Court recently set aside two arbitral awards after it found that the arbitrator had misconducted himself in the proceedings. While instances of arbitrator misconduct are limited, the obvious disregard for procedure which restricts the fair treatment of parties will always be upheld by the courts. Practitioners should therefore endeavour to assist arbitrators to ensure that due procedure is followed.
In a recent case the applicant applied for the registration in Cyprus of two arbitral awards issued against the respondents. The respondents challenged the application on the grounds that the relevant documents had not been translated by an official, sworn translator, as required by law. The court agreed and rejected the application. Practitioners must ensure compliance with the provisions for the translation of arbitral awards during the application stage.
An arbitration award may be enforced under the International Commercial Arbitration Law, which covers all matters related to international commercial arbitration. Under the law an arbitral award is recognised as binding, irrespective of the country in which it was issued. The party seeking execution must file an application at court with an original copy of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement.
The Cypriot courts have adopted a pro-arbitration approach and usually give effect to arbitration agreements. However, there are instances in which one party may be allowed to circumvent an arbitration agreement and take advantage of the court's jurisdiction. An effective arbitration clause or agreement should be in writing, be broad in scope and be as clear and unambiguous as possible.
The Supreme Court recently confirmed its pro-arbitration approach regarding applications for a stay of proceedings in a decision concerning a loan agreement with an arbitration clause stating that disputes between the parties would be resolved by the Norwegian Arbitration Court. The court rejected the claimant's argument that the arbitration clause was void due to uncertainty.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that the legal scope of the term 'arbitrator misconduct' does not cover the legal interpretation of documents. According to Article 20(2) of the Arbitration Law, an arbitration award may be set aside where an arbitrator has misconducted himself or herself or the proceedings, or when the award has been improperly procured.
The Supreme Court recently issued a certiorari decree to repeal an arbitration judgment from a Korean court. The applicant argued that a civil court decree which enforced the Korean ruling was unlawful, as a decision from a foreign court is recognised only when at least one of the parties stays within the territory of the civil court. The parties in question were registered in China and Korea.
In Uralmetprom v Besuno Ltd, the Supreme Court held that an application based on an arbitration award which had not been registered or recognised in Cyprus was destined to fail, since the award was not enforceable. The case concerned the filing of an application to wind up a company on behalf of a creditor whose capacity as such was based on an arbitration ruling which was not registered or recognised in Cyprus.
In a recent case the applicant requested an interlocutory order preventing the first respondents from disposing of assets of the second respondent's company until a full hearing before arbitration forums in Stockholm and London. The first respondents disputed the Cypriot court's jurisdiction to grant such orders as the applicants sought orders against respondents that were not parties to the arbitrations under consideration.