London arbitrators had made an award for unpaid hire in US dollars, being the currency of the hire contract. An issue arose whether an English court could give leave under the Act to enforce the award in the same manner as a judgment to the same effect.
Held: English arbitrators had jurisdiction to make their awards in a foreign currency where that currency was the currency of the contract. Such an award could be enforced with the leave of the court by converting the award into sterling at the rate of exchange ruling at the date of the award.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘In my opinion English arbitrators have authority, jurisdiction and power to make an award for payment of an amount in foreign currency. They can do this – and I would add, should do this – whenever the money of account and the money of payment is in one single foreign currency. They should make their award in that currency because it is the proper currency of the contract. By that I mean that it is the currency with which the payments under the contract have the closest and most real connection. Likewise, whenever the proper currency of a contract is a foreign currency, English arbitrators can and should make their award in that currency, unless the parties have expressly or impliedly agreed otherwise. The proper currency can usually be ascertained without difficulty. But if the transaction is closely connected with two currencies (as in The the Hu [1970] P 106 Japanese salvors of a Panamanian vessel) the arbitrators can and should make their award in whichever of the two currencies seems to them to produce the most appropriate and just result.’ and (Roskill LJ) ‘I would only add on this part of the case that this decision does not amount to a general licence to arbitrators and umpires to make awards in any currency they choose heedless of the provisions of the contract with which they are concerned. The currency of account and the currency of payment will in most cases be easily ascertainable just as the proper law of a contract is in most cases easily ascertainable. In a few cases the problem will be difficult as in a few cases the question of proper law is difficult. But even in a difficult case the problem must ultimately be capable of solution and the arbitrators (if they wish) can – as I would think – always decide as a matter of discretion to make an award in sterling unless either the terms of the contract in question or of the arbitration agreement under which their jurisdiction arises or some other reason prevents them from so doing.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR
Citations:
[1974] QB 292
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo Spa and others CA 31-Jul-2003
The parties went to arbitration to resolve disputes in a construction contract. The award appeared to have been made for payment in currencies different from those set out in the contract. The question was asked as to whether the award of interest . .
Cited – Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo Spa and others HL 30-Jun-2005
The House had to consider whether the arbitrator had acted in excess of his powers under s38, saying the arbitrator had misconstrued the contract. The arbitrator had made his award in different currencies.
Held: The question remained whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration, International, Damages, Litigation Practice
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.185175