Implied promise to pay arbitral award
The parties disputed how limitation affects the enforcement of an arbitration award. More than six years had passed since the award had been made, and the defendant said it was out of time.
Held: A party can enforce an award either by ordinary action as an action founded upon the implied promise to pay the award, or in the same manner as a judgment is a statutory process. ‘There is a clear distinction between an arbitration award and a judgment. An arbitration agreement is in essence enforceable because of the implied contractual promise to pay an arbitration award contained in the arbitration agreement; all measures of enforcement essentially rest upon the contract. The provisions of s.26 of the 1950 Act and s.66 of the 1996 Act must be seen in that context. They are simply procedural provisions enabling the award made in consensual arbitral proceedings to be enforced.’
 EWCA Civ 1330, Times 24-Dec-2009,  CP Rep 18,  1 Lloyd’s Rep 222,  2 CLC 982,  2 All ER 899
Arbitration Act 1950 26, Arbitration Act 1996 66, Limitation Act 1980 24
England and Wales
Cited – Re Boks and Co v Peters, Rushton and Co Ltd CA 1919
The alternative procedure for seeking enforcement of an arbitrator’s award is by an action upon the award. The procedure is to be used only in ‘reasonably clear cases’. . .
Cited – Middlemiss and Gould v Hartley Corporation Pty Ltd CA 1972
The defendant challenged enforcement of an arbitration award.
Held: The challenge had not been made in time, and the award was final and conclusive. Lord Denning MR said that an arbitration award is like a final judgment which should be . .
Cited – Hall and Woodhouse Ltd v Panorama Hotel Properties Ltd 1974
Cited – Agromet Motoimport Ltd v Maulden Engineering Co (Beds) Ltd 1985
Time begins to run on the collection of an arbitration award, not from the date upon which the award is made or published, but from the date when the paying party is in breach of its implied obligation to pay the award. . .
Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Cited – Lowsley and Another v Forbes CA 21-Mar-1996
The statutory time limit under the Limitation Act applied only to the right to take substantive proceedings and had nothing whatever to do with the procedural machinery for enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. The Act of 1875 brought about a . .
Cited – Ex Parte Caucasian Trading Corporation: Bankruptcy Petition CA 1896
A proceeding in bankruptcy was based upon an order to enforce an ordinary civil arbitration award. Under the 1889 Act it was possible to obtain an order in the High Court of England for the enforcement of such an order and all that was held was that . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank v Powney CA 1990
The limitation period has nothing to do with the procedural machinery of enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. . .
Cited – Erskine, Regina v; Regina v Williams CACD 14-Jul-2009
The defendants had been separately convicted of murder several years ago. They sought the quashing of the convictions and substitution of convictions for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Held: The appeal of Erskine . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.383834