Siemens AG and BKMI Industrieanlangen GmbH v. Dutco Construction Co., Ltd.
France Court of Cassation
Bull. civ. I, No. 2r (Fr.), 7 Mealey’s Int’l Arb. Rep. B-3, [1993] 18 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 140 (1992)
Facts
In 1981 Dutco Construction Co., Ltd. (Dutco) (defendant), BKMI Industrieanlangen GmbH (BKMI) (plaintiff), and Siemens AG (plaintiff) entered a consortium agreement concerning the construction of a cement factory in Oman. The consortium agreement stated that any disputes arising from the agreement should be arbitrated by three arbitrators under the arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Dutco filed a single request for arbitration against BKMI and Siemens together to resolve claims involving BKMI and Siemens separately. BKMI and Siemens were instructed by the ICC to jointly nominate one arbitrator. BKMI and Siemens made the joint appointment but protested the procedure, arguing that joint proceedings were improper. The ICC found that the tribunal was properly constituted and proceeded with arbitration in multiparty form, with Dutco opposing Siemens and BKMI. The arbitration resulted in an award disfavoring BKMI and Siemens. BKMI and Siemens appealed the tribunal’s decision and sought to annul the arbitration award. The appeal was rejected by the France Court of Appeal, which found that because the parties mutually intended to create a multiparty agreement, they also accepted the foreseeable possibility of joint proceedings involving all three parties. BKMI and Siemens appealed to the France Court of Cassation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
