Court of Appeal affirms English courts’ supervisory role over English-seated arbitrations

The Court of Appeal has held that a party cannot sidestep a London-seated arbitration award by bringing “pre-emptive” New York Convention recognition and enforcement proceedings in another jurisdiction. On 24 July 24 2025, the Court of Appeal issued a decision explaining its reasoning for granting an anti-suit injunction against Pakistan’s National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited (NTDCL). This related to Pakistani court proceedings in which NTDCL sought non-recognition of an LCIA award that had been granted in favour of Star Hydro Power Limited (SHPL). In doing so, the Court of Appeal reiterated the exclusivity of the English courts’ supervisory powers over English-seated arbitrations, including post-award remedies.

Background to the appeal

SHPL and NTDCL entered into a power purchase agreement in 2012 for a hydro-electric project in Pakistan. A dispute arose as to the tariffs charged under the contract, with NTDCL claiming that regardless of the contractual language, as a matter of Pakistani law the rate was the one determined by Pakistan’s energy regulator (NEPRA). In 2024, the sole arbitrator issued a London-seated award requiring NTDCL to pay SHPL the difference between the tariff set by NEPRA and a higher tariff due under the contract.

Then, before SHPL sought enforcement of the award, NTDCL applied to the Lahore High Court for partial recognition and enforcement of one portion of the award, a paragraph where the arbitrator had dismissed and denied “all other claims and requests for relief”. In doing so, NTDCL meanwhile requested a determination that the other declarations and orders in the dispositive section of the award, including the order for NTDCL to pay damages, were unenforceable.

SHPL sought an anti-suit injunction from the English courts ordering NTDCL not to continue with the Pakistani proceedings. At first instance, the Commercial Court denied the application. The judge found the English court had no “policing role” to play in relation to NTDCL’s challenge and that nothing in the text of the convention prohibited NTDCL from bringing pre-emptive recognition and enforcement proceedings. She also found that the application to the Pakistani courts was a legitimate New York Convention application rather than a “root and branch” attack on the award, and that comity weighed against the English court determining what issues the Pakistani courts could entertain.

SHPL appealed the denial to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal reiterated the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the English courts over English-seated arbitrations. As established in the cases of C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282 and Atlas Power [2018] EWCA 1052 (Comm), agreement to a London-seated arbitration is an agreement that the English courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine any challenge to the award, and thus the English courts generally grant anti-suit injunctions in relation to foreign proceedings seeking to challenge awards issued in arbitrations seated in England.

In C v D, the Court of Appeal described an arbitration agreement as analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction agreement, in the sense of it conferring exclusive supervisory jurisdiction on the courts of the seat. Atlas Power was particularly relevant, as that case involved NTDCL itself as a defendant after it had commenced proceedings in Pakistan directly seeking to set aside an award issued in a London-seated arbitration related to a Pakistani law-governed contract. The Commercial Court enjoined NTDCL from pursuing the set aside proceedings in Atlas Power, rejecting its argument that the Pakistani courts had concurrent jurisdiction with the English courts.

The Court of Appeal also provided guidance on the interpretation of the New York Convention. While agreeing that the New York Convention allows for the recognition and enforcement of portions of an award, the court found that Article V of the New York Convention operates as a shield, not a sword. In other words, the Convention allows a respondent to resist enforcement only when and where the winner seeks to enforce; it does not create a free-standing right to bring a declaratory action challenging the award in a jurisdiction outside the seat of arbitration. Thus, any challenges to a London award must be brought in the English courts under sections 67-69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Court of Appeal found that the English courts had exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over NTDCL in relation to the arbitration proceedings. The fact that NTDCL “labelled” its claims to the Pakistani courts as claims under the New York Convention did not rob the English courts of their exclusive jurisdiction to ensure that NTDCL did not bring proceedings in breach of the arbitration clause.

The Court of Appeal further found that the application to the Pakistani court breached the arbitration agreement. Looking at the “true nature and effect” of the contentions, the specific portions of the award NTDCL sought to enforce, and the relief sought, the Court of Appeal found that the Pakistani proceedings were a “full-throated” challenge to the award, despite their label as New York Convention proceedings. The arbitration agreement only allowed such challenges to be brought in the English Courts on the grounds provided for in the Arbitration Act 1996, and NTDCL was not allowed to “nullify the effect of the Award under the guise of recognising and enforcing it.”

Conclusions

There are two key principles arising from this decision. First, the decision closes a potential defensive loophole. Parties cannot assume that labelling foreign proceedings as “recognition and enforcement” actions will protect them from an anti-suit injunction, if the true purpose is to nullify a London-seated award. Second, the case re-affirms the importance of the parties’ choice of arbitral seat. Selecting London as the seat places all post-award challenges firmly in the English courts, providing certainty, but also limiting tactical manoeuvres elsewhere.