Sovarex SA v Romero Alvarez SA

Sovarex SA v Romero Alvarez SA

Alvarez did not lose the right to object to enforcement under s.66(3) because its correspondence amounted only to protestation of jurisdiction, not participation in the arbitration. The court has power to determine disputed issues of fact within s.66 proceedings and need not require a separate action on the award. There is no basis for a stay or for declining jurisdiction due to the Spanish proceedings, as the Spanish court has not determined the validity of the contract and there is no current risk of inconsistent judgments. The English court is the appropriate forum for enforcement of the award.

Parties
Claimant: Sovarex S.A.; Defendant: Romero Alvarez S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Ruling on Application for Permission to Enforce Arbitration Award Under S.66 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application for summary enforcement under s.66 not granted at this stage; directions to be given for determination of jurisdictional challenge.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Jurisdictional Objections, Lis Pendens, Forum Non Conveniens, Recognition of Foreign Judgments
Arbitration Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Jurisdictional Objections Lis Pendens Forum Non Conveniens Recognition of Foreign Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sovarex S.A.

Claimant

Romero Alvarez S.A.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Ruling on Application for Permission to Enforce Arbitration Award Under S.66 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent lost the right to object to enforcement under s.66(3) Arbitration Act 1996 by participation in the arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the s.66 application should be dismissed due to real grounds for doubting the validity of the award
  3. 3 Whether the court should stay or decline jurisdiction due to parallel Spanish proceedings or findings under the Brussels Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

Alvarez did not lose the right to object to enforcement under s.66(3) because its correspondence amounted only to protestation of jurisdiction, not participation in the arbitration. The court has power to determine disputed issues of fact within s.66 proceedings and need not require a separate action on the award. There is no basis for a stay or for declining jurisdiction due to the Spanish proceedings, as the Spanish court has not determined the validity of the contract and there is no current risk of inconsistent judgments. The English court is the appropriate forum for enforcement of the award.

Court Disposition

Application for summary enforcement under s.66 not granted at this stage; directions to be given for determination of jurisdictional challenge.

Orders

  • Directions to be given for determination of Alvarez's challenge to jurisdiction under s.66 Arbitration Act 1996