English High Court Grants Registration of an ICSID Award, but Refuses Its Execution

On 19 January 2024, the High Court of England and Wales (Dias J) gave a judgment in Border Timbers Ltd v Zimbabwe, which concerned an application to set aside an order granting registration of an ICSID award. The court dismissed the application while holding that the execution of the award was precluded by state immunity.

To reach this conclusion, the court dealt with interesting questions of private international law and international arbitration, namely the distinction between recognition, enforcement and execution of awards and the application of state immunity to the execution of ICSID awards.

Facts

Zimbabwe lost an ICSID arbitration (Border Timbers Limited, Timber Products International (Private) Limited, and Hangani Development Co (Private) Limited v Republic of Zimbabwe (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/25)). The award was not satisfied. The award-creditor successfully applied for registration and entry of judgment on the award in England pursuant to the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 (“1966 Act”) and section 62.21 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The award-debtor applied to set aside the registration of the award on the basis that it was immune from the jurisdiction of the UK courts under the State Immunity Act 1978 (“1978 Act”).

Legal Framework

Articles 53-55 of the ICSID Convention deal with the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards in the Contracting States. The first sentence of Article 54(1) states that “Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State.” Article 54(3) specifies that the execution of ICSID awards is governed by the laws concerning the execution of judgments of the requested state. Article 55 preserves the application of the requested state’s law of state immunity from execution.

The 1966 Act implements the ICSID Convention in UK law. Section 1 of the Act provides for the registration of ICSID awards. Section 2(1) of the Act specifies that the effects of registration are that a registered award “shall, as respects the pecuniary obligations which it imposes, be of the same force and effect for the purposes of execution as if it had been a judgment of the High Court”. The Act does not address foreign states’ immunity from execution.

The 1978 Act provides for general immunity from jurisdiction except insofar as one of the stipulated exceptions can be established. The award-creditor argued that the exceptions in sections 2 (“submission to jurisdiction”) and 9 (“arbitrations”) of the Act applied. Section 2 specifies that a state is not immune as respects proceedings in respect of which it has submitted to the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Section 9 states that where a state has entered into a written arbitration agreement, it is not immune as respects proceedings in the UK courts which relate to the arbitration, subject to any contrary provision in the arbitration agreement.

Judgment

The court held that Articles 53-55 of the ICSID Convention stipulated that every Contracting State undertook to recognise an ICSID award as binding for the purposes of res judicata and to enforce any pecuniary obligations it imposed by giving it the same status as a final judgment of its own courts. The requested court cannot re-examine the award on its merits or refuse recognition or enforcement on grounds of public policy. Questions of execution were left to national courts and laws. In particular, Article 54(1) amounted to a waiver of state immunity in respect of recognition and enforcement, but not in relation to processes of execution against assets.

The exception to state immunity in section 2 of the 1978 Act was drafted with reference to specific proceedings before a specific court, thus requiring any submission to be in respect of the jurisdiction actually being exercised in those proceedings. A waiver of immunity unrelated to any identifiable proceedings was therefore not synonymous with a submission to the jurisdiction under section 2. Article 54 of the ICSID Convention was not a sufficiently clear and unequivocal submission to the jurisdiction of the English courts for the purposes of recognising and enforcing the award against the award-debtor. The award-debtor, therefore, had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the English courts within the meaning of section 2 for the purposes of obtaining recognition and enforcement of the award.

Unfortunately, the court’s discussion of the exception to state immunity in section 9 of the 1978 Act is somewhat unclear. After finding that section 9 required or permitted the English courts to re-examine the jurisdiction of the tribunal (whether an ICSID or non-ICSID tribunal) and that ICSID awards did not fall to be treated differently from other awards in this respect, the court concluded, at [89], that:

The position under section 9 is therefore different from that which pertains under section 2 in relation to Article 54. The enquiry which the court has to conduct under section 2 is whether there was a submission to the jurisdiction. On my analysis, the existence of a valid award is a given in that context, and the only question is whether it was rendered pursuant to Convention procedures. Questions of jurisdiction simply do not arise.

Therefore, according to the court, the award-creditor did not establish the applicability of the section 9 exception.

The remaining question was whether state immunity was engaged at all in relation to an application for registration of an ICSID award. The court held that the procedure for registration of ICSID awards set out in section 62.21 of the Civil Procedure Rules did not require service of any originating process or involved any exercise of discretion or adjudication. This was because the award-creditor had a statutory entitlement to have the award registered, subject only to proof of authenticity and other evidential requirements. The foreign state was not impleaded unless and until the order granting registration was served on it. The doctrine of state immunity had no application at the anterior stage of registration. It was the service of process on a state that involved an exercise of sovereignty. This contrasted with the mere notification of the application for registration. The opportunity of a state to assert immunity before any attempt was made to execute against its assets was adequately secured by requiring service of the order for registration. Consequently, the award-debtor could not apply to set aside the registration of the award on the basis that it was immune from the jurisdiction of the UK courts. However, it could claim immunity in relation to any further steps towards execution.

Interestingly, the court further stated that this approach enabled a principled distinction to be drawn between applications to enforce ICSID awards, which were not served and where the award could not be reviewed, and applications to enforce awards under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958. The NYC potentially required service and expressly required the court to exercise its adjudicative jurisdiction in determining that no defences applied.

Comment

The judgment is of interest for private international law for three reasons. First, it illustrates, in very clear terms, the difference between recognition, enforcement and execution of an award. Second, it confirms the conceptual distinction between a general waiver of immunity and a submission to jurisdiction. Third, it clarifies the ministerial (and not adjudicative) nature of the act that the court is asked to perform on an application for registration of an ICSID award.

However, the reasoning of the court is not entirely satisfactory. After repeatedly reading paragraph 89 of the judgment, I still do not understand why the court concluded that the award-creditor did not establish the applicability of the section 9 exception. A more persuasive line of reasoning would have been to point out that the award-debtor’s offer of ICSID arbitration, as contained in Article 10(2) of the Switzerland-Zimbabwe BIT, incorporated the ICSID Convention, including Article 55, which provides that questions of execution are left to national courts and laws – this could have amounted to a “contrary provision in the arbitration agreement” within the meaning of section 9(2) of the 1978 Act.