## Facts

- A U.S. company (Firm P) and a German company (Firm F) entered a cross-border commercial contract containing an arbitration clause referring disputes to arbitration under American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules.
- A dispute was submitted to a single arbitrator appointed under AAA procedures in the United States.
- The arbitrator decided the case on written submissions and documents without holding an oral evidentiary hearing.
- During the written procedure, Firm P sent a letter to the arbitrator that was not transmitted to Firm F.
- Firm F submitted a letter from a German ministry that conflicted with Firm P’s position; the arbitrator did not consider it.
- The arbitrator issued an award in favor of Firm P.
- A U.S. federal district court confirmed the award as enforceable in the United States.
- Firm P sought recognition and enforcement in Germany; a court of first instance granted enforcement.
- Firm F appealed to the Hamburg Court of Appeal, resisting enforcement under the New York Convention.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcement should be refused under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention because Firm F was “unable to present its case” due to non-transmission of Firm P’s letter, disregard of Firm F’s ministry letter, and the absence of an oral hearing.
2. Whether Article V(1)(b) requires the resisting party to show material, outcome-relevant prejudice from the asserted procedural irregularities.

## Decision

- The Hamburg Court of Appeal dismissed Firm F’s appeal and affirmed enforcement of the award in Germany.
- The court declined to refuse recognition and enforcement under Article V(1)(b).
- The court treated the complained-of irregularities as insufficient to establish that Firm F was unable to present its case or that any defect could have changed the result.
- The court did not view a document-only procedure, without an oral hearing, as automatically violating Article V(1)(b) where a party had an adequate opportunity to present written arguments and evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Article V(1)(b) is construed narrowly; refusal of enforcement is limited to serious procedural defects that materially impair the right to be heard.
- A party resisting enforcement on due process grounds generally must show not only a procedural breach but also prejudice capable of affecting the outcome.
- Document-only arbitration is not, by itself, inconsistent with Article V(1)(b) if the parties had notice and a meaningful opportunity to present their case in writing.
- Enforcement review under the New York Convention does not permit reconsideration of the merits; the enforcing court focuses on minimum procedural fairness.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the foreign arbitral award despite alleged procedural irregularities, holding that Article V(1)(b) requires a showing of material, outcome-relevant impairment of a party’s ability to present its case and that the absence of an oral hearing is not a standalone ground to refuse enforcement.


Firm P (U.S.A.) v. Firm F (F.R.G.), 2 Y.B. Com. Arb. 241 (O.L.G. Hamburg 1975)