Judgment of 17 February 2011, Government of Pakistan, Mininistry of Religious Affairs v. Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co.

XXXVI Y.B. Comm. Arb. 590 (2011)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Judgment of 17 February 2011, Government of Pakistan, Mininistry of Religious Affairs v. Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co.

Paris Court of Appeal
XXXVI Y.B. Comm. Arb. 590 (2011)

Facts

In February 1995, Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. (Dallah) (plaintiff) approached The Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA) (defendant). Dallah informed MORA the King of Saudi Arabia had entrusted Dallah with the maintenance for the Holy Sites of Mecca. Dallah then offered MORA with long-term leases for housing complexes to host religious pilgrims. In July 1995, Dallah and MORA entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) where Dallah would build the housing complexes on the plots of land leased by the Government of Pakistan and would provide financing for the project. In July 1995, Dallah and MORA officials signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). In February 1996, however, the government of Pakistan announced that the Awami Hajj Trust (the Trust) would have funding for the terms of the MOU. The Pakistani Minister of Religious Affairs, the secretary of the MORA, and the Minister of Finances served on the board of the Trust. In September 1996, Dallah signed an agreement, with the Trust as the named Pakistani party, containing an arbitration clause. In December 1996, the Trust ceased to exist legally, as the government of Pakistan did not reissue the presidential decree that founded the Trust. In January 1997, the secretary of the MORA accused Dallah of repudiating the terms of the MOU by failing to abide by the terms. Dallah referred the matter to arbitration, with MORA named as a counterparty. The MORA argued Dallah could not invoke the arbitration clause from the Agreement of September 1996. The arbitral tribunal disagreed, finding the arbitration clause granted the tribunal jurisdiction over the matter and over MORA as a signatory of the MOU from July 1995. MORA appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal, asking the court to set aside the award on jurisdiction by the arbitral tribunal. The MORA argued that the Trust negotiated the Agreement and the included arbitration clause with Dallah and that the actions of the Trust cannot be attributed to the MORA.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership