Judgment in Gold Reserve Inc. v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  was handed down on 2 February 2016 by Teare J.  This case concerned an application by the Defendant, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (“Venezuela”),  to set aside an ex parte order granting leave to the Claimant, Gold Reserve Inc. (“GRI”), to enforce a USD 713 million (plus interest and costs) arbitration award in the same manner as a judgment of the High Court of England and Wales.  The application was rejected.  This is, by any measure, a noteworthy case for England as an arbitration jurisdiction, one whose circumstances are “striking”  and from which a number of insights can be gleaned. 

 

Teare J’s decision is a valuable lesson in contractual construction, particularly the limited value of precedent when construing the meaning of words in bilateral investment treaties. It is also an instructive demonstration of loyalty to the wording of the text in giving effect to the express language of treaties and their rules of interpretation as well as the supervisory function of national courts in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.  Finally, this judgment is a helpful, if subtle, illustration of the ‘pro-enforcement’ bias which the New York Convention  has imbued into national courts while balancing the attendant implications of procedural fairness, legitimate expectations and judicial comity.