Source: http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=10&menu=627&opac_view=-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:53:45+00:00

Document:
1. Article VI of the Convention addresses the situation where a party seeks to set aside an award in the country where it was issued, while the other party seeks to enforce it elsewhere.
1166. See Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 981 (E. Gaillard, J. Savage eds., 1996); Nicola C. Port, Jessica R. Simonoff et al., Article VI, in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 415, 416 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento et al. eds., 2010). See also Continental Transfer Technique Ltd. v. Federal Government of Nigeria, High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 30 March 2010,  EWHC 780 (Comm); IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm).
3. Article VI was not included in the early drafts of the Convention and the issues it addresses were first considered during the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration convened for the preparation and adoption of the Convention. In turning their minds to these issues, the drafters of the Convention sought to ensure that a party wishing to frustrate the enforcement of an award could not circumvent the Convention by simply initiating proceedings to set aside or suspend the award, while at the same time limiting the risk that an enforced award would be subsequently set aside in the country in which it was made.
1167. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.17, p. 4.
1168. See article 1 of the 1927 Geneva Convention: “To obtain such recognition or enforcement, it shall, further, be necessary: [...] (d) That the award has become final in the country in which it has been made, in the sense that it will not be considered as such if it is open to opposition, appel or pourvoi en cassation (in the countries where such forms of procedure exist) or if it is proved that any proceedings for the purpose of contesting the validity of the award are pending; [...].” See also Philippe Fouchard, L’arbitrage commercial international 535 (1965); Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation 353 (1981).
1169. The District Court of Columbia has provided the following definition of “adjourn” within the meaning of article VI of the Convention: “stay or dismiss without prejudice”. See Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Telkom SA, Limited, District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 9 April 2004, 02-1990. See also CP Construction Pioneers Baugesellschaft Anstalt v. The Government of the Republic Ghana, Ministry of Roads and Transport, District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 12 August 2008, 1:04-01564 (LFO); Continental Transfert Technique Lmt. v. Federal Government of Nigeria et al., District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 23 March 2010, 08-2026 (PLF).
1171. For a more detailed analysis, see the chapter of the Guide on article V (1)(e).
1172. ESCO Corp v. Bradken Resources Pty Ltd, Federal Court, Australia, 9 August 2011, NSD 876 of 2011.
1173. Christoph Liebscher, Article VI, in New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958—Commentary 438, 439 (R. Wolff ed., 2012); Michael H. Strub, Resisting Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Under Article V (1)(e) and Article VI of the New York Convention: A Proposal for Effective Guidelines, 68 Tex. L. Rev. 1031, 1047 (1989-1990).
7. It took a while for practitioners to avail themselves of the possibilities offered by article VI.1174 Now, courts around the world have applied this provision with a view to promoting the objectives of the Convention by facilitating the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.
1174. See Pieter Sanders, A Twenty Years’ Review of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 13 Int’l Law 269, 273 (1979).
8. Article VI of the Convention requires that an application for the setting aside or suspension of an award “has been made” before a competent authority. In the absence of such an application, courts must refuse to adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award.
1175. Korea Wheel Corporation v. JCA Corporation, District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, United States of America, 16 December 2005, C05-1590C.
1176. Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation, Inc. v. Admart AG, Heller Werkstatt GesmbH and others, Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, United States of America, 8 August 2006, 04-4014.
1177. Hallen v. Angledal, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, 10 June 1999, 50055 of 1999.
1178. S.A. Recam Sonofadex v. S.N.C. Cantieri Rizzardi de Gianfranco Rizzardi, Court of Appeal of Orléans, France, 5 October 2000; Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Republic and Canton of Ticino, Switzerland, 9 December 2010, 14.2010.98.
1179. S.A. Recam Sonofadex v. S.N.C. Cantieri Rizzardi de Gianfranco Rizzardi, Court of Appeal of Orleans, France, 5 October 2000.
1180. See, e.g., Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, B.V., et al. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, United States of America, 4 June 2003, 02-23249; Belize Social Development Ltd. v. Government of Belize, Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, United States of America, 13 January 2012, 10-7167; The Commercial Company for Investment v. Bell Rover Shipping Limited, Court of Appeal of Cairo, Egypt, 19 March 1997, 68/113.
1181. For a detailed analysis of the case law, see the chapter of the Guide on article V (1)(e).
1182. Kersa Holding Company Luxembourg v. Infancourtage, Famajuk Investment and Isny, Superior Court of Justice, Luxembourg, 24 November 1993. See also The Commercial Company for Investment v. Bell Rover Shipping Limited, Court of Appeal of Cairo, Egypt, 19 March 1997.
1183. Isaac Glecer v. Moses Israel Glecer and Estera Glecer-Nottman, President of the District Court of Rotterdam, Netherlands, 24 November 1994, XXI Y.B. Com. Arb. 635 (1996).
1184. Belize Social Development Ltd. v. Government of Belize, Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, United States of America, 13 January 2012, 10-7167.
1186. See, e.g., Encyclopaedia Universalis, S.A. v. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 31 March 2005, 403 F.3d 85. See also Thai-Lao Lignite Co. Ltd. et al. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 3 August 2011, 10 Civ. 5256 (KMW); Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 2 September 1998, 97-7224.
1187. Hallen v. Angledal, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, 10 June 1999, 50055 of 1999. See also Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, B.V., et al. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, United States of America, 4 June 2003, 02-23249.
15. Pursuant to article VI of the Convention, the authority before which the award is sought to be relied upon may order that the party opposing enforcement give suitable security “on the application of the party claiming enforcement”. The language of article VI allows the courts to order security only if the party seeking enforcement so requests.
1188. Spier v. Calzaturificio Tecnica S.p.A (“Spier I”), District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 29 June 1987, 663 F. Supp. 871.
1189. Skandia America Reinsurance Corporation v. Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguros, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 21 May 1997, 96 Civ. 2301 (KMW), XXIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 956 (1998); Consorcio Rive, S.A. de C.V. v. Briggs of Cancun, Inc., David Briggs Enterprises, Inc., District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, United States of America, 26 January 2000, 99-2205, XXV Y.B. Com. Arb. 1115 (2000).
1190. Leonard Higgins v. SPX Corporation, District Court, Western District of Michigan, United States of America, 18 April 2006, 2006 WL 1008677.
1191. Nicola C. Port, Jessica R. Simonoff et al., Article VI, in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on The New York Convention 415, 434 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento et al. eds., 2010).
1192. Yukos Oil Co. v. Dardana Ltd., Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 18 April 2002,  EWCA Civ 543.
1193. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, et al. v. Chemical Overseas Holdings, Inc. et al., District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 24 January 2006, 05 Civ. 6154 (WHP); Belize Social Development Ltd. v. Government of Belize, Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, United States of America, 13 January 2012, 10-7167; Korea Wheel Corporation v. JCA Corporation, District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, United States of America, 16 December 2005, C05-1590C.
1194. See, e.g., Christoph Liebscher, Article VI, in New York Convention on The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958—Commentary 438, 440 (R. Wolff ed., 2012); Rena Rico, Searching for Standards: Suspension of Enforcement Proceedings under Article VI of the New York Convention, 1 Asian Int’l Arb. J. 69, 79 (2005).
1195. See Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 2 September 1998, 97-7224.
1196. Hebei Import & Export Corp v. Polytek Engineering Co. Ltd., High Court, Supreme Court of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1 November 1996,  3 HKC 725.
1197. Powerex Corp. v. Alcan Inc., Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, 10 July 2003, 2003 BCSC 1096; Nuovo Pignone SpA v. Schlumberger S.A., Court of Appeal of Florence, Italy, 17 May 2005, XXXII Y.B. Com. Arb. 403 (2007); Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Schleswig, Germany, 16 June 2008, 16 Sch 02/07; AB Götaverken v. General National Maritime Transport Company (GMTC), Libya and others, Supreme Court, Sweden, 13 August 1979, VI Y.B. Com. Arb. 237 (1981); Korea Wheel Corporation v. JCA Corporation, District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, United States of America, 16 December 2005, C05-1590C; China National Chartering Corp. et al. v. Pactrans Air & Sea Inc., District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 13 November 2009, 06 Civ. 13107 (LAK); DRC Inc. v. Republic of Honduras, District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 28 March 2011, 10-0003 (PLF).
1198. ESCO Corp v. Bradken Resources Pty Ltd., Federal Court, Australia, 9 August 2011,  FCA 905; Hallen v. Angledal, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, 10 June 1999, 50055 of 1999.
1199. IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm). See also Dowans Holding S.A. v. Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd., High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 July 2011,  EWHC 1957 (Comm).
1200. Continental Transfer Technique Ltd. v. Federal Government of Nigeria, High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 30 March 2010,  EWHC 780 (Comm). In the United States, article VI has also been construed as granting “unfettered discretion” to adjourn pending the outcome of an application to set aside: see Ukrvneshprom State Foreign Economic Enterprise v. Tradeway, Inc., District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 11 March 1996, 95 Civ. 10279, XXII Y.B. Com. Arb. 958 (1997).
1201. Spier v. Calzaturificio Tecnica S.p.A, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 29 June 1987, 663 F. Supp. 871; Consorcio Rive, S.A. de C.V. v. Briggs of Cancun, Inc., David Briggs Enterprises, Inc., District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, United States of America, 26 January 2000, 99-2205, XXV Y.B. Com. Arb. 1115 (2000); Yukos Oil Co. v. Dardana Ltd., Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 18 April 2002,  EWCA Civ 543; IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm); The Republic of Gabon v. Swiss Oil Corporation, Grand Court, Cayman Island, 17 June 1988, XIV Y.B. Com. Arb. 621 (1989).
1202. See the chapter of the Guide on Article VI, para. 4. See also a proposal of the Dutch delegate to the Conference, providing that the “judge in the country of enforcement must be given complete latitude either to grant an exequatur immediately, if he considered that there was no reason to refuse it, or to await the outcome of proceedings for its annulment instituted in the country in which it had been made.” Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the Eleventh Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.11, p. 5.
1203. See, e.g., Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 2873-2874 (2009); W. Michael Tupman, Staying Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention, 3 Arb.Int’l 209, 211 (1987); Christoph Liebscher, Article VI, in New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958—Commentary 438, 438 (R. Wolff ed., 2012); Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation 353, 358 (1981).
1204. W. Michael Tupman, Staying Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention, 3 Arb. Int’l 209, 220 (1987); Nicola C. Port, Jessica R. Simonoff et al., Article VI, in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 415, 419 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento et al. eds., 2010).
1205. Fertilizer Corp. of India (India) v. IDI Mgmt. Inc. (United States), District Court, Southern District of Ohio, United States of America, 9 June 1981, C-1-79-570.
1206. IPCO v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corp., High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 17 April 2008,  EWHC 797 (Comm).
1207. Dowans Holding S.A. v. Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd., High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 July 2011,  EWHC 1957 (Comm); Rena Rico, Searching for Standards: Suspension of Enforcement Proceedings under Article VI of the New York Convention, 1 Asian Int’l Arb. J. 69, 79 (2005).
1208. Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 2 September 1998, 97-7224.
1209. Norsolor S. A. v. Pabalk Ticaret Limited Sirket, Court of Appeal of Paris, France, 15 December 1981. See also C.C.M. SULZER v. Société Maghrébienne de Génie Civil (SOMAGEC), Société des Anciens Etablissements Riad Sahyoun (S.A.E.R.S.) et M. Riad Sahyoun, Court of Appeal of Paris, France, 17 February 1987, 86.4767. On the current position in France, see chapter of the Guide on article VI, para. 30.
1210. Spier v. Calzaturificio Tecnica S.p.A, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 29 June 1987, 663 F. Supp. 871.
1211. Rena Rico, Searching for Standards: Suspension of Enforcement Proceedings under Article VI of the New York Convention, 1 Asian Int’l Arb. J. 69, 77 (2005); W. Michael Tupman, Staying Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention, 3 Arb. Int’l 209, 221 (1987).
1212. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.17, p. 4.
1213. Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corporation, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 9 October 2002, 2002 WL 31268635, XXVIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 1043 (2003).
1214. MGM Productions Group, Inc. v. Aeroflot Russian Airlines, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 14 May 2003, 573 F. Supp. 2d 772, XXVIII Y.B. Com. Arb.1271 (2003). See also Alto Mar Girassol v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, United States of America, 12 April 2005, 04 C 773.
1215. Hallen v. Angledal, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, 10 June 1999, 50055 of 1999.
1217. Société Bargues Agro Industries S.A. v. Société Young Pecan Company, Court of Appeal of Paris, France, 10 June 2004, 2003/09894.
31. Courts have been developing their own reasons in exercising their discretion and have considered a wide variety of factors when deciding whether to grant a request for adjournment. Those factors include the Convention’s goal of facilitating the enforcement of arbitral awards and expediting dispute resolution, the likelihood of the party prevailing in the setting aside proceeding, the expected duration of the proceedings pending in the country where the award was issued, the potential hardship to parties, judicial efficiency and international comity.
1218. The Republic of Gabon v. Swiss Oil Corporation, Grand Court, Cayman Islands, 17 June 1988, XIV Y.B. Com. Arb. 621 (1989).
1219. IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm).
1220. Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours Inc, Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 2 September 1998, 97-7224. Subsequent decisions rendered in the United States applied these factors in determining whether or not enforcement proceedings should be adjourned: see, e.g., MGM Productions Group, Inc. v. Aeroflot Russian Airlines, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 14 May 2003, 573 F. Supp. 2d 772, XXVIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 127 (2003); G. E. Transp. S.P.A. v. Republic of Albania, District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 28 March 2011, 08-2042 (RMU); DRC Inc. v. Republic of Honduras, District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 10-0003(PLF).
34. A similar multifactor approach was adopted in Canada by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Powerex Corp. v. Alcan Inc.1221 In this case, the Supreme Court initially adjourned the proceedings after consideration of various factors, including whether the setting aside application in the United States was frivolous, whether an adjournment would inordinately delay the proceedings, and whether it would not be more convenient and efficient for a court in the United States to decide questions of domestic law. When the court in the United States dismissed the application to set aside the award, the decision was appealed by Alcan, and Powerex renewed its request for recognition and enforcement of the award. The Supreme Court of British Columbia held that the party seeking an adjournment must meet the threshold test of establishing that there is a “serious issue to be tried.” In weighing the balance of convenience and irreparable harm, the court noted that it should consider a number of factors, including the estimated time to complete the case in the originating jurisdiction, whether the party opposing enforcement is “merely delaying the inevitable,” whether a court in the originating jurisdiction has already refused to set aside the award, the availability of security and the possibility that the party opposing enforcement would hide or disperse its assets prior to enforcement, and the willingness of the party opposing enforcement to undertake diligent prosecution of the action in the originating jurisdiction.
1221. Powerex Corp. v. Alcan Inc., Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, 30 June 2004, 2004 BCSC 876. See also Powerex Corp. v. Alcan Inc., Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, 10 July 2003, 2003 BCSC 1096.
35. Although courts tend to consider the same set of factors when deciding whether to adjourn enforcement proceedings, some of them are most commonly referred to and the decision to adjourn enforcement proceedings often depends in significant part on one or two of these factors.
1222. Toyo Engineering Corp v. John Holland Pty Ltd., Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, 20 December 2000, 7565 of 2000. See also Powerex Corp. v. Alcan Inc., Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, 10 July 2003, 2003 BCSC 1096.
1223. Far Eastern Shipping Co. v. AKP Sovcomflot, High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), England and Wales, 14 November 1994, XXI Y.B. Com. Arb. 699 (1996).
1224. See The Republic of Gabon v. Swiss Oil Corporation, Grand Court, Cayman Islands, 17 June 1988, XIV Y.B. Com. Arb. 621 (1989); Toyo Engineering Corp v. John Holland Pty Ltd., Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, 20 December 2000, 7565 of 2000.
1225. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 2876 (2009); Christoph Liebscher, Article VI, in New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958—Commentary 438, 441 (R. Wolff ed. 2012).
1226. See Fertilizer Corp. of India v. IDI Mgmt. Inc., District Court, Southern District of Ohio, United States of America, 9 June 1981, 517 F. Supp. 948; Spier v. Calzaturificio Tecnica S.p.A, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 29 June 1987, 663 F. Supp. 871; Ukrvneshprom State Foreign Economic Enterprise v. Tradeway, Inc., District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 11 March 1996, 95 Civ. 10279, XXII Y.B. Com. Arb. 958 (1997).
1227. Soleh Boneh International Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Uganda and National Housing Corporation, Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 12 March 1993,  2 Lloyd’s Rep 208. See also Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation v. Banque Arabe et Internationale d’Investissements, Court of First Instance, Belgium, 25 January 1996; Hallen v. Angledal, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, 10 June 1999, 50055 of 1999; Dowans Holding S.A. v. Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd., High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 July 2011,  EWHC 1957 (Comm); Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Celle, Germany, 20 November 2003, 8 Sch 02/03.
1228. Rena Rico, Searching for Standards: Suspension of Enforcement Proceedings under Article VI of the New York Convention, 1 Asian Int’l Arb. J. 69, 74 (2005).
1229. Hebei Import & Export Corp v. Polytek Engineering Co. Ltd., High Court in the Supreme Court of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1 November 1996,  3 HKC 725.
1230. Powerex Corp. v. Alcan Inc., Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, 10 July 2003, 2003 BCSC 1096.
1231. IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm).
1232. Toyo Engineering Corp v. John Holland Pty Ltd., Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, 20 December 2000, 7565 of 2000.
1233. Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation v. Banque Arabe et Internationale d’Investissements, Court of First Instance, Belgium, 25 January 1996. This decision was upheld by the Brussels Court of Appeal: see Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation v. Banque Arabe et Internationale d’Investissements, Court of Appeal of Brussels, Belgium, 24 January 1997, XXII Y.B. Com. Arb. 643 (1997).
1234. Hallen v. Angledal, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, 10 June 1999, 50055 of 1999.
1235. Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Celle, Germany, 20 November 2003, 8 Sch 02/03.
1236. Far Eastern Shipping Co. v. AKP Sovcomflot, High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), England and Wales, 14 November 1994, XXI Y.B. Com. Arb. 699 (1996).
1237. CP Construction Pioneers Baugesellschaft Anstalt v. The Government of the Republic Ghana, Ministry of Roads and Transport, District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 12 August 2008, 1:04-01564(LFO); Spier v. Calzaturificio Tecnica S.p.A, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 29 June 1987, 663 F. Supp. 871; Powerex Corp. v. Alcan Inc., Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, 30 June 2004, 2004 BCSC 876.
1238. Consorcio Rive, S.A. de C.V. v. Briggs of Cancun, Inc., David Briggs Enterprises, Inc., District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, United States of America, 26 January 2000, 99-2205, XXV Y.B. Com. Arb. 1115 (2000). See also IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm).
1239. Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corporation, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 9 October 2002, 2002 WL 31268635, XXVIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 1043 (2003).
43. Certain commentators have argued that the appropriate standard for determining whether to adjourn enforcement proceedings under article VI of the Convention should not be the mere possibility or even the probability of inconsistent judgments, but rather a balancing of the potential harm to the parties.1240 These commentators consider that the Convention refrains from stating that the operation of article VI depends upon the chances of success of the application to set aside the award and that, in light of the Convention’s objective of facilitating and expediting the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the enforcing court retains independent discretion to either enforce or suspend enforcement of the award.
1240. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 2876 (2009); Christoph Liebscher, Article VI, in New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958—Commentary 438, 443 (R. Wolff ed., 2012); W. Michael Tupman, Staying Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention, 3 Arb. Int’l 209, 222 and 225 (1987).
1241. ESCO Corp v. Bradken Resources Pty Ltd., Federal Court, Australia, 9 August 2011,  FCA 905.
1242. Jorf Lasfar Energy Company, S.C.A. v. AMCI Export Corporation, District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, United States of America, 22 December 2005, 05-0423; Alto Mar Girassol v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, United States of America, 12 April 2005, 04 C 773.
1243. Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 2 September 1998, 97-7224.
1244. AB Götaverken v. General National Maritime Transport Company (GMTC), Libya and others, Supreme Court, Sweden, 13 August 1979, VI Y.B. Com. Arb. 237 (1981).
1245. Southern Pacific Properties v. Arab Republic of Egypt, President of the District Court of Amsterdam, Netherlands, 12 July 1984, X Y.B. Com. Arb. 487 (1985).
45. This approach has been followed by a number of decisions applying a multi-factor approach—such as Europcar Italia SpA v. Maeillano Tours Inc (and subsequent decisions in the United States which considered the same factors)1246—which invites courts to balance various factors in order to ascertain whether the rights of the parties are better preserved and protected through adjournment or enforcement.
1246. See, e.g., China National Chartering Corp. et al. v. Pactrans Air & Sea Inc, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 13 November 2009, 06 Civ. 13107 (LAK); DRC Inc. v. Republic of Honduras, District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 28 March 2011, 10-0003 (PLF); Alto Mar Girassol v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, United States of America, 12 April 2005, 04 C 773.
46. A court that adjourns enforcement proceedings pursuant to article VI of the Convention “may also [...] order the other party to give suitable security”. The Convention offers little guidance as to how this provision is to be applied, and instead provides the courts with a wide discretion to determine when to require security and in what amount and form.
1247. See Soleh Boneh International Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Uganda and National Housing Corporation, Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 12 March 1993,  2 Lloyd’s Rep 208; Alto Mar Girassol v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, United States of America, 12 April 2005, 04 C 773. See also Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 2877 (2009).
1248. Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Federal Government of Nigeria, High Court, England and Wales, 30 March 2010,  EWHC 780 (Comm); Soleh Boneh International Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Uganda and National Housing Corporation, Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 12 March 1993,  2 Lloyd’s Rep 208.
1249. Europcar Italia S.p.A. v. Alba Tours International Inc., Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada, 21 January 1997, CLOUT Case 366, XXVI Y.B. Com. Arb. 311 (2001).
1250. Jorf Lasfar Energy Company, S.C.A. v. AMCI Export Corporation, District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, United States of America, 22 December 2005, 05-0423.
1251. Gater Assets Ltd. v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy, Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 17 October 2007,  EWCA Civ 988; Yukos Oil Co. v. Dardana Ltd., Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 18 April 2002,  EWCA Civ 543.
1252. Henri Lièvremont and v. Adolphe Cominassi, Maatschappij voor Industriele Research en Ontwikkeling B.V., President of Rechtbank, Court of First Instance of Zutphen, Netherlands, 9 December 1981, VII Y.B. Com. Arb. 399 (1982).
1253. Southern Pacific Properties v. Arab Republic of Egypt, President of the District Court of Amsterdam, Netherlands, 12 July 1984, X Y.B. Com. Arb. 487 (1985).
1254. Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Frankfurt, Germany, 10 November 1993, 27 W 57/93. See also Powerex Corp., formerly British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation v. Alcan Inc., formerly Alcan Aluminum Ltd., Court of Appeal of British Columbia, Canada, 4 October 2004, 2004 BCCA 504.
1255. See, e.g., Gater Assets Ltd. v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy, Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 17 October 2007,  EWCA Civ 988; Yukos Oil Co. v. Dardana Ltd., Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 18 April 2002,  EWCA Civ 543.
50. The fact that courts of Contracting States only consider whether to order security when contemplating adjournment does not mean that those courts should always order the party opposing enforcement to provide suitable security when an adjournment is granted.
1256. Yukos Oil Co. v. Dardana Ltd, Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 18 April 2002,  EWCA Civ 543.
1257. IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm).
1258. See, e.g., Alto Mar Girassol v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, United States of America, 12 April 2005, 04 C 773; Nedagro B.V. v. Zao Konversbak, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 21 January 2003, 02 Civ. 3946 (HB); Skandia America Reinsurance Corporation v. Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguros, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 21 May 1997, 96 Civ. 2301 (KMW), XXIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 956 (1998); Consorcio Rive, S.A. de C.V., Briggs of Cancun, Inc., David Briggs Enterprises, Inc., District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, United States of America, 26 January 2000, 99-2205, XXV Y.B. Com. Arb. 1115 (2000).
1259. Nedagro B.V. v. Zao Konversbak, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 21 January 2003, 02 Civ. 3946 (HB).
1260. Southern Pacific Properties v. Arab Republic of Egypt, President of the District Court of Amsterdam, Netherlands, 12 July 1984, X Y.B. Com. Arb. 487 (1985).
1261. Consorcio Rive, S.A. de C.V. v. Briggs of Cancun, Inc., David Briggs Enterprises, Inc., District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, United States of America, 26 January 2000, 99-2205, XXV Y.B. Com. Arb. 1115 (2000).
1262. Ingaseosas International Co. v. Aconcagua Investing Ltd., Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, United States of America, 5 July 2012, 11-10914; Skandia America Reinsurance Corporation v. Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguros, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 21 May 1997, 96 Civ. 2301 (KMW), XXIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 956 (1998).
1263. Martin Spier v. Calzaturifico Tecnica S.p.A., District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 12 September 1988, 1988 WL 96839.
1264. Toyo Engineering Corp v. John Holland Pty Ltd., Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, 20 December 2000, 7565 of 2000. See also Powerex Corp. v. Alcan Inc., Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, 30 June 2004, 2004 BCSC 876.
1265. Toyo Engineering Corp v. John Holland Pty Ltd., Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, 20 December 2000, 7565 of 2000.
1266. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.17, p. 4.
1267. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 2877 (2009); W. Michael Tupman, Staying Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention, 3 Arb. Int’l 209, 223 (1987).
56. Still, in light of the permissive language of article VI, which provides that courts may, within the ambit of their discretion, decide whether or not to order security, a number of courts have, as is evidenced below, decided to adjourn enforcement proceedings without ordering security.
57. In deciding whether to order that the party opposing enforcement give security, courts usually consider various factors, including the likelihood of success of the petition to set aside or suspend the award, the likelihood that assets will still be available if enforcement is delayed, and the relative hardship caused to the parties by the order.
1268. Soleh Boneh International Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Uganda and National Housing Corporation, Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 12 March 1993,  2 Lloyd’s Rep 208.
1269. Apis AS v. Fantazia Kereskedelmi KFT, High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 21 September 2000,  1 All ER (Comm).
1270. IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm).
1271. Karaha Bodas Co. LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara—Pertamina, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong, 20 December 2002, XXVIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 752 (2003).
1272. Hebei Import & Export Corp v. Polytek Engineering Co. Ltd., High Court, Supreme Court of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1 November 1996,  3 HKC 725.
1273. The Republic of Gabon v. Swiss Oil Corporation, Grand Court, Cayman Island, 17 June 1988, XIV Y.B. Com. Arb. 621 (1989).
1274. Jorf Lasfar Energy Company, S.C.A. v. AMCI Export Corporation, District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, United States of America, 22 December 2005, 05-0423. See also Alto Mar Girassol v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, United States of America, 12 April 2005, 04 C 773.
1275. Skandia America Reinsurance Corporation v. Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguros, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 21 May 1997, 96 Civ. 2301 (KMW), XXIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 956 (1998).
1276. DRC Inc. v. Republic of Honduras, District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 28 March 2011, 10-0003 (PLF).
63. Courts determine at their own discretion the amount and form of the security to be posted by the party opposing enforcement.
1277. Apis AS v. Fantazia Kereskedelmi KFT, High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 21 September 2000,  1 All ER (Comm).
1278. The Republic of Gabon v. Swiss Oil Corporation, Grand Court, Cayman Islands, 17 June 1988, XIV Y.B. Com. Arb. 621 (1989).
1279. Consorcio Rive, S.A. de C.V., Briggs of Cancun, Inc., David Briggs Enterprises, Inc., District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, United States of America, 26 January 2000, 99-2205, XXV Y.B. Com. Arb. 1115 (2000).
1280. Nicola C. Port, Jessica R. Simonoff et al., Article VI, in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on The New York Convention 415, 435 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento et al. eds., 2010).
1281. I. Martin Spier v. Calzaturifico Tecnica S.p.A., District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 12 September 1988, 1988 WL 96839.
1282. Nicola C. Port, Jessica R. Simonoff et al., Article VI, in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A global Commentary on The New York Convention 415, 435 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento et al. eds, 2010).
1283. Toyo Engineering Corp v. John Holland Pty Ltd., Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, 20 December 2000, 7565 of 2000; Alto Mar Girassol v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, United States of America, 12 April 2005, 04 C 773; Europcar Italia S.p.A. v. Alba Tours International Inc., Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada, 21 January 1997, CLOUT Case 366, XXVI Y.B. Com. Arb. 311 (2001).
1284. Soleh Boneh International Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Uganda and National Housing Corporation, Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 12 March 1993,  2 Lloyd’s Rep 208.
1285. ESCO Corp v. Bradken Resources Pty Ltd., Federal Court, Australia, 9 August 2011, NSD 876 of 2011.
1286. IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm).
1287. Skandia America Reinsurance Corporation v. Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguros, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 21 May 1997, 96 Civ. 2301 (KMW), XXIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 956 (1998); Jorf Lasfar Energy Company, S.C.A. v. AMCI Export Corporation, District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Unites States of America, 22 December 2005, 05-0423; IPCO v. Nigeria (NNPC), High Court, England and Wales, 27 April 2005,  EWHC 726 (Comm).
1288. See Martin Spier v. Calzaturifico Tecnica S.p.A., District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 12 September 1988, 1988 WL 96839: in this case, the Court directed the defendant to issue a letter of credit within ninety days.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.