OVERSEAS JUDGMENTS GIVEN IN BREACH OF AGREEMENT FOR SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (Hansard, 21 May 1982)

§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 20, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert 'Subject to the following provisions of this section, a judgment given by a court of an overseas country in any proceedings shall not be recognised or enforced in the United Kingdom—'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16.

§ The Solicitor-General
Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 16 are of a purely drafting nature, but amendment No. 14 makes substantive changes by inserting two new subsections.
Subsection (1A) makes further provision as to when proceedings in a foreign court will be regarded as being contrary to an agreement for the purposes of a subsection (1)(a). Clearly proceedings taken abroad will not be contrary to an arbitration or jurisdiction agreement if the agreement in question was void. However, the subsection covers certain other cases where the agreement, though valid, was unenforceable or incapable of being performed. An example would be where disputes under a contract were to be referred to a named arbitrator who in the event declined to act so that effect could not be given to the decision to go to arbitration. If there was no mechanism for appointing someone else to act in his place, it would be reasonable for the plaintiff to resort to the ordinary courts. A similar idea is contained in section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1975 which provides for our courts to stay their proceedings in the face of an arbitration agreement but makes exception for agreements which are void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
Subsection (1B) will ensure that our courts will assess the validity of an arbitration or jurisdiction agreement in accordance with their assessment of the law to be applied and will not be bound by any decision of the foreign court as to whether the agreement was valid. The likelihood is, of course, that the foreign court will be bound by its own law to treat the agreement as invalid.

§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 20, line 23, leave out from 'of' to 'section' in line 25.
It would perhaps be convenient to take at the same time amendments Nos. 18 and 20, as all three are purely drafting amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I understand that it is for the convenience of the House to take at the same time those Government amendments.

§ Mr. Archer
This is a purely pedantic intervention on my part. Amendment No. 17 seeks to delete certain words following the word "of', but the word "of' occurs twice in line 23. The amendment is therefore ambiguous. I think that there is little doubt that the intention is to refer to the first "of ". I can imagine, however, that at some subsequent time officials may be in difficulty about what is to go on to the statute book.

§ The Solicitor-General
I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to that. Even if there is a choice, no doubt the intention of the amendment is obvious and effect will be given to the meaning that makes sense. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall do my best to ensure that that happens.