The Pitfalls of Conflicting Judicial Outcomes in International Arbitration: Lessons from 'Kabab-Ji v. Kout Food Group'
In two recent cases arising from a single arbitration, the courts of England and France reached opposite results on what law governs the parties' agreement to arbitrate. These two divergent views led to two significantly different outcomes highlighting the pitfalls of international arbitration: The UK Supreme Court denied enforcement of the arbitration award while the French court upheld it. This article explores the circumstances that led to this awkward outcome and the key takeaways.
April 01, 2022 at 11:15 AM
7 minute read
Alternative Dispute ResolutionInternational contracting parties often turn to arbitration to avoid potentially biased national courts when disputes arise. However, even if they choose arbitration, disputants remain subject to the whims of domestic courts when they seek to enforce an arbitration award. In two recent cases arising from a single arbitration, the courts of England and France reached opposite results on what law governs the parties' agreement to arbitrate. These two divergent views led to two significantly different outcomes highlighting the pitfalls of international arbitration: The UK Supreme Court denied enforcement of the arbitration award while the French court upheld it. This article explores the circumstances that led to this awkward outcome and the key takeaways.
Background. The case of 'Kabab-Ji v. Kout Food Group (KFG)' involves a Lebanese company, Kabab-Ji, that had entered into a series of franchise agreements (FAs) with a Kuwaiti company. Thereafter, the Kuwaiti counterpart underwent a corporate restructuring whereby it became a subsidiary of a new holding company, KFG. When a dispute arose under the FAs, Kabab-Ji initiated arbitration proceedings against KFG with the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, in accordance with the FAs. However, KFG was not a party to any of the FAs and thus took part in the arbitration under protest. In deciding on KFG's argument that it was not subject to the arbitration agreement since it wasn't a party to the FAs, the Tribunal noted that the arbitration clause was silent as to the law governing the agreement to arbitrate. It rejected the argument that the law of the contract, namely English law, should therefore apply to the arbitration agreement. Instead, it concluded that the law of the seat of the arbitration, in this case French law, should apply to the procedural matters. Applying French law, the Tribunal determined that KFG was bound by the FAs and ultimately found that it was in breach of its contractual obligations. It thus issued an award in favor of Kabab-Ji.
KFG subsequently filed an annulment application before the Paris Court of Appeal. It also sought to have the enforcement of the award set aside by the UK court to which Kabab-Ji had applied. Ultimately, the French court of appeal agreed with the Tribunal and thus concluded that KFG is bound by the arbitration agreement. The UK Supreme Court, however, determined that the Tribunal should have applied English law to the arbitration agreement, pursuant to which KFG is not bound by the FAs. It therefore found that enforcement of the award should be rejected.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
6 minute readKenneth Feinberg Had Dreams of Being on the Big Screen. His 9/11 Victims Fund Gave Him an Unexpected Star Turn
Manhattan Appeals Court Appoints Retired Justice as New Pre-Argument Conference Chair
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250