Gatoil International v. National Iranian Oil Co.
England and Wales High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
XVII Y.B. Comm Arb. 587 (1992)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In April 1982, Gatoil International (Gatoil) (plaintiff) and National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) (defendant) signed a contract for the purchase of oil between April and December 1982. Section 8 of the written contract provided that the parties would refer any disputes to arbitration in accordance with the laws of Iran. Section 8 also provided that the party that initiated the arbitration would nominate one arbitrator, while the other party would nominate a second arbitrator. The two arbitrators would then appoint a third arbitrator; the President of the Appeal Court in Iran would appoint the third arbitrator if the two arbitrators could not reach an agreement. Section 8 also provided the arbitration would occur in Tehran. In 1987, a dispute arose between the parties, and Gatoil initiated a suit in a British court. Although Gatoil refused to arbitrate in Iran, NIOC prepared to appoint an arbitrator in Tehran. NIOC then filed for a mandatory stay under § 1(1) of the Arbitration Act of 1975, the statute implementing the New York Convention. Gatoil countered that Section 8’s process of appointing the third arbitrator was invalidated by the fact that the position of the President of the Appeal Court in Iran no longer existed. Gatoil also claimed it was impossible for Gatoil to find a qualified arbitrator willing to go to Tehran.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.