Lombard-Knight & Anor v Rainstorm Pictures Inc
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
- LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE
Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Commercial Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves Rainstorm Pictures Inc. seeking enforcement of an arbitration award in the UK under the Arbitration Act 1996, following a JAMS arbitration in Los Angeles. The initial enforcement order, set aside due to certification issues, was later confirmed as substantively compliant. Defendants' appeals were dismissed, emphasizing substantive compliance with certification and the importance of notice in arbitration procedures.
Judgment
Lord Justice Tomlinson :
Sections 100-103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 give effect in the United Kingdom to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards. That Convention was first given domestic effect by the Arbitration Act 1975. Section 102 of the 1996 Act provides:-
“(1) A party seeking the recognition or enforcement of a New York Convention award must produce –
(a) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy of it, and
(b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy of it.
(2) If the award or agreement is in a foreign language, the party must also produce a translation of it certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent.”
This almost exactly reproduces Article IV of the Convention. It is immediately apparent that the statutory language embraces two concepts, authentication and certification. The question in this appeal concerns the manner in which a copy of an original arbitration agreement may be duly certified.
Lord Mustill and Steward Boyd QC, in their work The Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration in England, 2 nd Ed, 1989, remark, at page 425 that:-
“The references to documents being “duly authenticated” or “duly certified” are unfamiliar in an English context, but probably add nothing to the ordinary rules of evidence concerning proof of documents: the most convenient method of proof will generally be by exhibiting the document to an affidavit deposing to its authenticity, accuracy as a copy, or truth as a translation, as the case may be.”
Bearing in mind that the statute directly enacts the Convention, the statutory language must of course be given an autonomous meaning, which may be informed by the travaux preparatoires , the decisions on it of foreign courts and the views on it of foreign jurists – la jurisprudence and la doctrine – see Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5 th Ed, 2008 at page 682.
Applications for enforcement are dealt with in the Commercial Court in the first instance on paper. CPR 62.18(1)(b) provides that an application for permission under s.101 of the 1996 Act to enforce an award in the same manner as a judgment or order may be made without notice in an arbitration claim form. CPR 62.18(6) provides that an application for permission must be supported by written evidence exhibiting, where the application is under s.101 of the 1996 Act, the documents required to be produced by s.102 of that Act. So