Star Hydro Power Limited v National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited

Where an arbitration is seated in England and Wales, the courts of that seat have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over challenges to the award. The losing party cannot use the New York Convention to mount a pre-emptive challenge in another contracting state. Article V provides a shield against recognition or enforcement, not a free-standing means of invalidating an award.

The English court may grant an anti-suit injunction in personam where foreign proceedings breach the arbitration agreement or the exclusivity of the supervisory court. It must assess the substance and effect of the foreign proceedings. Describing them as partial recognition or enforcement does not protect proceedings which in reality seek to nullify the award.

SHPL and NTDCL entered a power purchase agreement containing an LCIA arbitration clause, with London as the seat where specified conditions were met. A London-seated arbitration resulted in an award declaring a contractual tariff and ordering NTDCL to pay the difference between that tariff and the tariff determined by NEPRA.

NTDCL then commenced proceedings in the Lahore High Court under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011. It sought recognition of part of the award, declarations that other parts were unenforceable or null, and relief restraining SHPL from relying on the contractual tariff. Dias J dismissed SHPL’s interim anti-suit application, holding that a pre-emptive Convention application was permissible. The appeal concerned whether the Lahore proceedings were in substance a prohibited challenge to a London-seated award.

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and granted an anti-suit injunction largely in the terms sought. Phillips LJ gave the judgment, with Andrews LJ and Peter Jackson LJ agreeing.

1. Supervisory jurisdiction. The parties’ choice of the arbitral seat selects the curial law and the supervisory courts. Under [2007] EWCA Civ 1282, a London seat is analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the English courts for remedies attacking the award. The applicable framework is the Arbitration Act 1996. Free-standing challenges fall within sections 67 to 69 and cannot be brought in another jurisdiction.
2. New York Convention. Interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, the Convention concerns recognition and enforcement in a secondary jurisdiction. Article V supplies grounds for resisting recognition or enforcement when an award is invoked. It is a shield, not a sword, and does not confer jurisdiction for a pre-emptive attack on the award. The scheme of sections 101 and 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 confirms that position.
3. Anti-suit relief. The English court retains a supervisory and policing role over proceedings brought in breach of the arbitration agreement and the exclusive jurisdiction of the supervisory court. It exercises jurisdiction in personam against the party in breach. Comity does not prevent relief, since the injunction restrains contractual conduct by the party, not the foreign court. The principles in The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87, as reaffirmed in UniCredit [2024] UKSC 30, applied.
4. Substance over form. Partial recognition or enforcement may in principle be available where the enforceable part of an award is ascertainable and can be reflected in a judgment. But the court must examine the true nature and effect of the foreign proceedings. NTDCL’s Lahore application sought to treat the substantive declarations and orders as nullities, while relying on the award’s standard dismissal of all other relief. Its proposed amendment would still have enabled it to neutralise the award and restrain SHPL from invoicing on the contractual tariff. The proceedings were therefore a full challenge to the award, not a Convention application.
5. Disposition. The Lahore proceedings breached the arbitration agreement and the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the English courts. NTDCL was restrained from continuing them.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 24 July 2025 the court allowed SHPL’s appeal and granted an anti-suit injunction restraining NTDCL from continuing the Lahore proceedings.
• High Court of Justice, Commercial Court. On 29 November 2024 Mrs Justice Dias dismissed SHPL’s application for an interim anti-suit injunction. She held that a pre-emptive application under the New York Convention was permissible and that the Pakistani court should determine the issues.