Judgment of 7 January 1992, Sociétés Bkmi et Siemens v. Société Dutco
France Court of Cassation
119 J.D.I. (Clunet) 707 (1992)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In March 1981, Siemens AG (Siemens) (plaintiff), BKMI Industrienlagen GmbH (BKMI) (plaintiff), and Dutco Construction Company (Dutco) (defendant) entered a consortium agreement for the construction of a cement plant in Oman. The consortium agreement provided that the parties would refer all disputes to arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules. The arbitration agreement provided the parties would appoint three arbitrators according to the ICC Rules. In 1986, Dutco commenced ICC arbitration against Siemens and BKMI, and Siemens and BKMI appointed a single arbitrator under protest. The arbitral tribunal entered a partial award affirming that the tribunal was validly constituted for multiparty arbitration. BKMI and Siemens sought an annulment of the partial award on the validity of the arbitral tribunal. In May 1989, the Paris Cour d’appel upheld the award. The Paris Cour d’appel found that the multiparty nature of the contract produced the possibility of differences such that the tribunal could validly contain a singular arbitrator appointed jointly by both parties. BKMI and Siemens appealed to the Court de Cassation, renewing the application for an annulment of the May 1989 decision.
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.