The decision is an important contribution to Danish case law on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Danish Arbitration Act and the New York Convention. The High Court's decision is in line with the recent ruling from the Supreme Court on a similar issue and is particularly interesting as the High Court, in the specific case, reaches a different conclusion.
Focus on the actual message - not the form
In March 2025, in the case U.2025.1922, the Supreme Court cemented the fundamental principle that a party must have been notified of arbitration proceedings and thus had the opportunity to present its case. What matters is whether the party actually received the notice - not in what form. The burden of proving that notification was not received is on the party claiming not to have received it. However, due to the difficulty of proving something that has not happened, "there will normally be grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the party against whom the arbitral award is invoked has been notified of the arbitration proceedings".
Where the Supreme Court found that the debtor in the case had not received proper notice, the Eastern High Court emphasised that the Chinese courts had considered the arbitration award served, that there was documentation that letters had been delivered to addresses in China and Denmark, which the respondent itself had informed or was registered at, and that the debtor had clearly participated in a chat correspondence with the claimant, where the claimant had sent information about the arbitration to the debtor.
The respondent in the arbitration also claimed that recognition and enforcement should be refused because his signature on the agreement containing the arbitration clause was false. The High Court rejected these objections, taking into account, among other things, a graphological statement submitted by the debtor with uncertain results, and found it proven that a valid arbitration agreement had been entered into.
The case was handled by Christian Bo Kolding-Krøger and Sofie Schrøder-Andreasen.
