Outhwaite v. Hiscox
United Kingdom House of Lords
3 WLR 297 (1991), 17 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 599 (1992)

- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
A dispute arose between Richard Outhwaite (plaintiff) and Robert Hiscox (defendant), two Lloyd’s underwriters, regarding a contract for reinsurance. The contract called for arbitration in London, England, in the event of a dispute. The first stage of the arbitration took place in England. However, the arbitrator signed the interim award in favor of Outhwaite in Paris, France. Hiscox sought leave to appeal for judicial review of the award in England. The England and Wales High Court held that the award was made in England even though the award was signed in Paris and, therefore, the court had primary jurisdiction to review the interim award. However, on appeal, the England and Wales Court of Appeal determined that the award was made in Paris, rendering it an award issued under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), but that the parties were nonetheless estopped from contesting the English court’s jurisdiction. Outhwaite appealed the England and Wales Court of Appeal’s decision to the House of Lords, arguing that the English courts were without jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the arbitral award was issued in Paris.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Oliver, J.)
What to do next…
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.