## Facts

- Two Lloyd’s syndicates entered into a reinsurance contract governed by English law, with an arbitration clause providing that arbitration would take place in London.
- A dispute over reinsurance liabilities was referred to a sole arbitrator, and the arbitration proceedings were conducted in London.
- The arbitrator issued an interim award favorable to Outhwaite on matters including avoidance for nondisclosure/misrepresentation.
- Although the arbitration was conducted in London, the arbitrator signed and dated the interim award in Paris, France, and then sent it to London.
- Hiscox sought leave in the English High Court to appeal the interim award under domestic English arbitration legislation.
- The High Court treated the award as made in England; the Court of Appeal treated it as made in France (a New York Convention state) but held Outhwaite estopped from denying English jurisdiction.
- Outhwaite appealed to the House of Lords, arguing that if the award was a Convention award made abroad, English domestic appeal mechanisms did not apply.

## Issues

1. For purposes of the Arbitration Act 1975 implementing the New York Convention, where is an arbitral award “made” when proceedings occur in London but the award is signed abroad?
2. If an award is a foreign Convention award, may English courts exercise domestic supervisory/appellate jurisdiction (including appeal on a question of law) based on English procedural law and the parties’ agreement?
3. Can estoppel by conduct confer or preserve English court jurisdiction where the statutory Convention regime otherwise limits it?

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed Outhwaite’s appeal.
- The interim award was “made” in France because it was signed and completed there, making it a Convention award under the Arbitration Act 1975.
- As a foreign Convention award, it was not subject to English domestic appeal mechanisms on the merits under the Arbitration Acts 1950 and 1979.
- The Court of Appeal’s reliance on estoppel to sustain English jurisdiction was rejected; jurisdiction could not be created where the statutory scheme did not confer it.

## Legal Principles

- For Convention purposes under the Arbitration Act 1975, an award is ordinarily “made” in the country where it is signed and completed by the arbitrator.
- Characterization as a foreign New York Convention award channels court involvement into the Convention recognition/enforcement framework and limits use of domestic appellate review on the merits.
- The allocation of supervisory authority under the Convention cannot be circumvented by using domestic appeal routes as an indirect merits review of a foreign award.
- Estoppel or waiver cannot confer statutory jurisdiction or override the Convention-based limits on a court’s authority.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords treated the award as made where it was signed (France), classified it as a foreign Convention award, and held that English domestic appeal jurisdiction on questions of law was unavailable; estoppel could not supply jurisdiction inconsistent with the statutory Convention regime.


Outhwaite v. Hiscox, [1992] 1 A.C. 562 (H.L. 1992)