Summary

1. The issue on this appeal is whether, by ratifying the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("the New York Convention" or "the Convention"), a foreign state has submitted to the adjudicative jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom (itself a party to the Convention) in respect of proceedings to enforce international arbitration awards adverse to that state, thereby waiving the sovereign immunity the state would otherwise be entitled to assert against such jurisdiction. The central question is whether Article III of the Convention ("Art. III") has that effect by providing as follows:

"Each Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon, under the conditions laid down in the following articles."

2. In these proceedings the claimants seek to enforce against the respondent ("India") two arbitral awards. The first is a final award on jurisdiction and merits dated 25 July 2016 and the second a final award on quantum for sums in excess of EUR 195m dated 13 October 2020 ("the Awards"). The Awards were made by a tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration seated in the Hague ("the Tribunal") in arbitration proceedings under the UNCITRAL rules brought by the first to third claimants against India pursuant to Article 8 of a bilateral investment treaty between Mauritius and India which entered into force on 20 June 2000 ("the BIT"). The fourth to sixth claimants, the appellants in this appeal, claim to be assignees of the benefit of the Awards and were joined as claimants without prejudice to any argument as to the validity and effect of the assignments.

...

... In my judgment, Sir William came to the right conclusion for the right reasons. I, too, would dismiss the appeal.