In Star Hydro Power Limited v National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 928 the English Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the English courts over London-seated arbitrations. The decision strengthens the position of English courts in protecting arbitration agreements and awards from collateral challenges in foreign jurisdictions.
Background to the dispute
The case concerned a dispute between two Pakistani entities: Star Hydro Power Limited ("Star Hydro") and National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited ("National Transmission") under a Power Purchase Agreement ("PPA"). Star Hydro constructed a hydroelectric power plant in Pakistan, and NTDC agreed to purchase electricity from it for 30 years.
A disagreement emerged over the applicable tariff for the electricity. National Transmission relied on a determination by Pakistan’s National Electric Power Regulatory Authority whilst Star Hydro claimed a higher tariff under the PPA.
The PPA contained an arbitration clause opting for arbitration under LCIA Rules seated in London. Star Hydro initiated an arbitration in the LCIA, to which National Transmission responded. The arbitrator found in Star Hydro's favour, awarding it significant sums. National Transmission relied later issued proceedings in the High Court of Lahore in Pakistan, and sought a partial recognition of the arbitration award and a declaration that other parts of the award were unenforceable under the New York Convention.
Star Hydro issued an anti-suit injunction in the English High Court to restrain the Pakistani proceedings. However, at first instance the English High Court refused the injunction on the basis that it held that National Transmission's relied pre-emptive challenge under Article V of the New York Convention was not impermissible, even if Star Hydro had not yet sought enforcement in Pakistan.
The Court of Appeal decision
The English Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision and granted the anti-suit injunction in favour of Star Hydro. The Court of Appeal affirmed that:
- The choice of London as the seat of arbitration conferred exclusive supervisory jurisdiction on the English courts, reaffirming the principle established in C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 128
- Any challenge to the award must be brought under sections 67 – 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and not pre-emptively under the New York Convention
- The New York Convention is intended to operate as a shield and not a sword - it allows parties to resist enforcement but not to proactively challenge awards outside the seat
The Court of Appeal concluded that NTDC's proceedings in Pakistan were an attempt to challenge the award in breach of the arbitration agreement.
Implications and practical guidance
The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the English court's proactive stance in protecting arbitration agreements and awards. It sends a clear that message that attempts to undermine London-seated arbitrations through foreign proceedings not be tolerated.
Parties seeking the protection of English arbitration law should consider the following drafting recommendations:
- Include a clear and explicit seat choice in your arbitration clause or agreement, specifying London as the seat
- Avoid ambiguity in arbitration clauses—clarity is essential to ensure enforceability and protection against collateral attacks
- Consider incorporating an exclusive jurisdiction clauses that expressly refers to challenges to the award
