English Court of Appeal holds in Devas Award Enforcement Dispute that Article III of the New York Convention does not amount to a submission by a state to English court jurisdiction
In an appeal concerning enforcement of an arbitral award in the Devas Award Enforcement Dispute, which concerned an arbitration rendered under the India-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), the English Court of Appeal held that India's ratification of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention) does not amount to a submission to the jurisdiction of English courts. The panel comprised Lords Justices Lewison, Newey, and Phillips. The Court held that Article III of the New York Convention, which requires contracting states to recognise and enforce arbitral awards in accordance with their procedural rules, does not waive sovereign immunity. The ruling was reported by the SCC Times as part of its commercial laws roundup for July 2026. The case is significant because it addresses the boundary between a state's treaty obligations to facilitate enforcement of arbitral awards and the separate question of whether ratifying such a treaty constitutes consent to the jurisdiction of the courts of another contracting state for enforcement purposes.
Why this matters
The ruling matters because it resolves a contested point about the relationship between the New York Convention and sovereign immunity in English law enforcement proceedings. States and their counsel have long argued that ratification of the New York Convention is a general treaty commitment to facilitate enforcement, not a case-by-case consent to foreign court jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal's affirmation of this position has direct implications for parties seeking to enforce investment treaty awards against sovereign states in English courts, reinforcing that a separate jurisdictional gateway must be established beyond the existence of the Convention itself.
On the Ground
International arbitration and public international law practices will see demand for advice on sovereign immunity as a defence to enforcement proceedings in English courts, the jurisdictional requirements for bringing enforcement applications against states, and investment treaty arbitration strategy. Bilateral investment treaty analysis and choice of enforcement forum are the core advisory questions this ruling sharpens. No specific law firms are named in the sources. A trainee on an international arbitration enforcement matter would prepare a treaty analysis note covering the relevant BIT provisions, draft a sanctions screening memo for the parties, and assist with the coordination of local counsel instruction letters in relevant enforcement jurisdictions.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What are the main legal hurdles a successful claimant in an investment treaty arbitration against a foreign state would face when seeking to enforce that award in English courts?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved