CLOUT
  index.

The plaintiff applied to the court ex partefor leave to enforce a final arbitral award against the defendant. The leave was granted subject to the usual stay in order to give the defendant an opportunity to oppose. The defendant requested the court to set the ex parte order aside on the grounds that the appointment of the arbitrator, or alternatively, the arbitration agreement was void because of mutual mistake on the part of both parties who acted in the belief that the arbitration was a domestic one to which MAL did not apply.

The court dismissed the defendant's application holding that it was res judicata and the defendant was estopped from now raising arguments that were not raised before the same court (case 58) and the Court of Appeal. In any case, the court was convinced that there was no mutual mistake of the parties since, as it had previously held (case 58), the parties did not sufficiently focus on whether the arbitration they agreed upon was a domestic or an international one; and that even if there were a mutual mistake, it would be one of law and not of fact, and one that did not go to the root of the agreement to arbitrate so as to lead to its annulment.

Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "9 February 2000"):

Abstract published in English: [1996] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 2, issue 2, 113

Text of the court decision published in English: [1996] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 2, issue 2, 117

Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 1999.