## Facts

- Société d’Etudes et de Commerce SA (SEC) entered into a charter-party contract relating to maritime transport with Weyl Beef Products BV (Weyl).
- Husson Huijsman Reefer BV (HHR) signed the charter-party on Weyl’s behalf.
- The charter-party included an arbitration clause calling for arbitration seated in London.
- A dispute arose and was submitted to arbitration before a sole arbitrator in London.
- In the arbitration, Weyl challenged jurisdiction, arguing HHR lacked authority to bind Weyl to the charter-party and its arbitration clause; therefore, Weyl said no valid arbitration agreement existed between SEC and Weyl.
- The arbitrator rejected Weyl’s jurisdictional objection, finding HHR had authority to bind Weyl and that the tribunal had jurisdiction.
- The arbitrator issued (i) a Final Award dated 19 October 1999 and (ii) an Award of Costs dated 7 February 2000, both in favor of SEC.
- SEC commenced proceedings in the Netherlands (Rechtbank Almelo, Court of First Instance) seeking recognition and enforcement of the awards under the 1958 New York Convention.
- Weyl resisted enforcement in the Dutch court and repeated its argument that, because HHR lacked authority, there was no valid arbitration agreement binding Weyl.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcement of the London awards should be refused under the New York Convention because Weyl was not bound by the arbitration agreement, given its claim that HHR lacked authority to sign the charter-party on Weyl’s behalf.
2. In enforcement proceedings, to what extent may the enforcing court re-examine the arbitral tribunal’s prior determination that it had jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Almelo Court of First Instance rejected Weyl’s objections to enforcement.
- The court granted recognition and enforcement in the Netherlands of the London Final Award and the Award of Costs.
- The court did not find a Convention ground (including lack of a valid arbitration agreement) that justified refusal of enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- Under the New York Convention, the party resisting recognition or enforcement bears the burden of proving a refusal ground.
- A party may resist enforcement by showing that the arbitration agreement was not valid or did not bind it (commonly addressed under Article V(1)(a)), including where the defense is based on lack of authority of an alleged agent or representative.
- An enforcing court may consider objections aimed at the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, but it need not treat enforcement proceedings as an opportunity to retry issues already argued and decided in the arbitration when the resisting party fails to prove the Convention defense.
- Recognition and enforcement are the default under the Convention; refusal is exceptional and confined to the listed grounds.

## Conclusion

In this Dutch enforcement action, SEC sought to enforce two London-seated arbitral awards against Weyl, and Weyl resisted by arguing the arbitration clause never bound it because HHR lacked authority to sign the charter-party on its behalf. The Almelo Court of First Instance rejected that defense and granted enforcement under the New York Convention, allowing SEC to enforce the Final Award and the Costs Award in the Netherlands.


Judgment of 19 July 2000, XXVI Y.B. Comm. Arb. 827 (2001)