## Facts

- Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC (the Bank), a UAE bank, participated in the Visa system under Visa International Operating Regulations and operated using a Visa centre in England.
- Paymentech Merchant Services Inc. (Paymentech), a U.S. payment processor and Visa member, processed Visa transactions for U.S. merchants.
- In 1997–1998, a Visa card issued by the Bank was used for 18 high-value purchases at a Florida jeweller (about US$1.064 million); the Bank alleged fraud/collusion and sought to reverse liability through Visa chargebacks.
- Under Visa’s inter-member dispute process, the dispute went first to the Visa International Arbitration Committee (VIAC) in California, which issued awards in Paymentech’s favor (March 1999).
- The Bank appealed under Visa rules to the Visa International Board of Directors (Visa Board); the Board met in London (November 1999) and dismissed the appeals, notifying the Bank on 29 November 1999.
- The Bank filed an arbitration claim in the English Commercial Court seeking relief under Arbitration Act 1996 ss 67 (jurisdiction), 68 (serious irregularity), and 69 (appeal on law), plus a late-filed extension of time under s 80(5); service was permitted out of the jurisdiction.
- Paymentech applied to set aside service, arguing the English court lacked jurisdiction because England was not the “seat of the arbitration” for purposes of the Arbitration Act 1996.

## Issues

1. How the court should determine the juridical seat under Arbitration Act 1996 s 3 where neither the parties nor the institutional rules designate a seat and different parts of the process occur in different countries.
2. Whether the VIAC proceeding and the Visa Board appeal are a single arbitration or separate arbitrations for identifying the relevant seat.
3. If (and only if) England were the seat, whether time should be extended under s 80(5) for a challenge brought outside the s 70(3) time limit.

## Decision

- The court treated the VIAC proceeding and the Visa Board appeal as separate arbitrations; the relevant arbitration for the court’s jurisdiction analysis was the Visa Board appeal arbitration.
- Applying Arbitration Act 1996 s 3, and considering the parties’ agreement and all relevant circumstances, the court held England was not the juridical seat of the Visa Board appeal arbitration.
- Because the seat was not in England and Wales (Arbitration Act 1996 s 2), the court lacked supervisory jurisdiction to entertain applications under ss 67, 68, or 69 regarding the appeal award.
- Service of the arbitration claim form on Paymentech out of the jurisdiction was set aside.
- The court did not need to determine the merits of an extension of time under s 80(5) given the lack of jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- The “seat of arbitration” is a juridical concept identifying the legal system governing the arbitration and the courts with supervisory authority; it is not the same as the physical venue of a hearing.
- Where no seat is designated, Arbitration Act 1996 s 3 requires the court to determine the seat by reference to the parties’ agreement and all relevant circumstances.
- A hearing held in England, without more, does not establish England as the juridical seat when the broader institutional arrangement and circumstances do not indicate an agreement to English curial law.
- Multi-tier institutional dispute mechanisms may constitute separate arbitrations; the seat must be identified for the specific arbitration whose award is being challenged.
- Part I remedies under Arbitration Act 1996 (including ss 67–69) depend on the seat being in England and Wales or Northern Ireland (s 2).

## Conclusion

The Commercial Court held that the Visa Board appeal process constituted a distinct arbitration whose juridical seat was not England, so the court had no supervisory jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act 1996 to review the appeal award and therefore set aside service out on the U.S. defendant.


Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v. Paymentech Merchant Servs., Inc., [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 514 (Q.B.)