Dallah v Government of Pakistan
UK Supreme Court · Other public awards · England and Wales · 3 November 2010
Why it matters
The leading English authority on jurisdiction at the enforcement stage, with a Saudi claimant at its centre. The Supreme Court held an enforcing court conducts a full rehearing of whether an arbitration agreement existed, owing no deference to the tribunal. The French courts then upheld the same award, making Dallah the standard illustration that the same arbitration can live or die depending on where you enforce.
Summary
Dallah, a Saudi company, agreed to provide housing in Mecca for Pakistani pilgrims. The contract was signed not by the Government of Pakistan but by a trust the government had created by ordinance, and the trust later lapsed. When the deal collapsed, Dallah started an ICC arbitration in Paris against the government itself. The tribunal decided the government was a true party despite never signing, and awarded Dallah about US$20m. Dallah then sought to enforce in England. The UK Supreme Court refused. Under the New York Convention, a court asked to enforce may decline if there was no valid arbitration agreement under the law of the seat, here French law, and the court held that question is for the enforcing court to decide for itself, with a full rehearing of the evidence rather than deference to the arbitrators' own view of their jurisdiction. Applying the French common-intention approach, it found the government had not agreed to arbitrate. Months later, the Paris Court of Appeal, applying French law in the courts of the seat, found the opposite and upheld the award. The split makes Dallah the case everyone cites on non-signatories, on enforcement-stage review, and on why the choice of where to enforce can decide everything.
The detail
Parties: Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company (Saudi Arabia) v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan
Case number: [2010] UKSC 46
Outcome: Enforcement of a US$20m ICC award refused in England: Pakistan never agreed to arbitrate. French courts later reached the opposite conclusion on the same award.
Quantum: US$20m award (refused enforcement in England)
Applicable law: New York Convention Article V(1)(a) via the Arbitration Act 1996 section 103; French law as the law of the seat governing the arbitration agreement.
Issues in play: Whether a state that never signed the contract can be bound by its arbitration clause through a trust it created, and how deeply an enforcing court may re-examine a tribunal's finding that it had jurisdiction. London and Paris answered differently on the very same award.
Read the full decision at UK Supreme Court ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.