## Facts

- PETROCI-Holding (acting for Petroci Exploration Production S.A.) obtained an ICC arbitral award in Paris on June 28, 2001 against Keen Lloyd Resources Ltd., a Hong Kong company.
- PETROCI applied in Hong Kong to enforce the award as a Convention award under Part IV of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341).
- On August 2, 2001, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance granted PETROCI ex parte leave to enforce the award in Hong Kong.
- Before the Hong Kong enforcement application, Keen Lloyd had begun proceedings in France described as an appeal against a decision granting recognition or enforcement of the award.
- Under French law, filing that appeal automatically stayed enforcement of the award in France.
- Keen Lloyd applied in Hong Kong to set aside the ex parte enforcement order, arguing the award was not yet “binding” because enforcement was stayed in France.

## Issues

1. Whether an ICC award is “binding on the parties” for purposes of Arbitration Ordinance § 44(2)(f) (reflecting New York Convention art. V(1)(e)) when enforcement is automatically stayed in the seat due to pending French proceedings.
2. Whether, even if § 44(2)(f) is engaged, the Hong Kong court should exercise discretion to enforce the award despite the French proceedings.

## Decision

- The court dismissed Keen Lloyd’s application to set aside the leave order.
- The court held the award was “binding” within the meaning of § 44(2)(f) notwithstanding the automatic stay of enforcement in France.
- The court held Keen Lloyd had not shown the award had been “set aside or suspended” by a competent authority in France.
- The court stated that even if a refusal ground were arguably made out, enforcement remained discretionary and the court would still enforce on the facts.
- The ex parte order granting leave to enforce the award in Hong Kong remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- The party resisting enforcement bears the burden to prove a ground for refusal under Arbitration Ordinance § 44(2).
- Grounds for refusal under § 44(2) are discretionary (“may be refused”); satisfaction of a ground does not compel refusal.
- For § 44(2)(f) / Convention art. V(1)(e), “binding” turns on the finality of the arbitral process (the tribunal having finally determined the dispute), not on whether enforcement is presently available in the seat.
- An automatic stay of enforcement in the seat caused by local challenge proceedings does not, by itself, establish that an award is not yet binding.
- A pending challenge in the seat does not equate to the award having been “set aside or suspended” absent an order with that effect by a competent authority.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Hong Kong enforcement of a Paris ICC award despite parallel French proceedings and an automatic French stay, treating “binding” as arbitral finality and applying a discretionary, pro-enforcement approach to the New York Convention refusal grounds.


Société Nationale d’Opérations Pétrolières de la Côte d’Ivoire–Holding v. Keen Lloyd Res. Ltd., [2001] HKCFI 173 (H.K. C.F.I. 2001)