Star Hydro Power Limited v National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited

Why It Matters

The decision threatens to reshape how the New York Convention is applied, potentially allowing English courts to influence enforcement outcomes worldwide and increasing risk for international arbitral awards.

Key Takeaways

• Court of Appeal issued unprecedented anti‑suit injunction on New York Convention.
• Decision extends C‑vs‑D principle to recognition and enforcement of awards.
• Judges argue English law cannot dictate interpretation for other states.
• Double‑control architecture of Convention separates seat and enforcement jurisdictions.
• Conflicting rulings create uncertainty for cross‑border arbitration enforcement.

Summary

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Star Hydro Power Ltd v National Transmission and Despatch Company Ltd introduced an anti‑suit injunction that halts New York‑Convention arbitration proceedings abroad – a move the counsel described as unprecedented in international arbitration law.

The judgment extends the well‑established C‑vs‑D principle, traditionally used to keep parties in the seat court, into the realm of recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention. Counsel argued this effectively imposes English law on other contracting states, blurring the double‑control architecture that separates the supervisory role of the seat from the sovereign discretion of enforcement courts.

Key excerpts include: “the Court of Appeal was unprecedented,” and “the injunction is premised exclusively on an alleged breach of the arbitration agreement.” The advocates highlighted the risk of English courts dictating interpretation for 171 other jurisdictions, undermining the convention’s balance.

If upheld, the ruling could spur a wave of similar injunctions, creating legal uncertainty for multinational parties and forcing arbitration practitioners to reassess forum‑selection strategies. Clarifying the limits of seat‑court authority will be essential to preserve the predictability of cross‑border arbitration enforcement.

Original Description

Star Hydro Power Limited (Respondent) v National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited (Appellant)

Case ID: UKSC/2025/0150

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0150.html

Hearing date: 15 June 2026 (Day 1 of 2)

On appeal from: [2025] EWCA Civ 928

Issue:

Can the English courts grant an injunction to restrain proceedings brought under the New York Convention in a foreign court that ostensibly seek partial recognition and enforcement of a London-seated arbitral award?

Facts:

NTDCL is a state entity incorporated in Pakistan and is the centralised electricity purchaser in the country. SHPL is special purpose vehicle incorporated in Pakistan in the business of power production. On 8 March 2012, NTDCL and SHPL entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (“the PPA”) under which SHPL agreed to construct and operate a hydroelectric power plant and NTDCL agreed to purchase electricity generated at the plant for a period of 30 years.

The PPA set a tariff for electricity of 7.0496 PKR/kWh by reference to an assumed project cost of US$362,392,000. Schedule 1 of the PPA contained a mechanism for adjusting the tariff and the project cost during construction. On 9 August 2018, SHPL sought an increase of the project cost to US$420,128,000 and a corresponding increase of the tariff to 11.600 PKR/kWh.

The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (“NEPRA”) is a statutory body under Pakistani law with exclusive responsibility for determining electricity tariffs. NEPRA had approved the mechanism for setting the tariff under the PPA. On 29 July 2020, NEPRA issued a decision reducing the project cost to US$326,261,000 and increasing the tariff to only 8.3924 PKR/kWh.

A dispute arose over the applicable tariff. The PPA included an arbitration agreement. SHPL commenced a London-seated arbitration under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”). On 7 May 2025, the Arbitrator issued an award (the “Award”) in which it held that: (i) he had jurisdiction to hear the claim, (ii) on a correct interpretation of the PPA, the project cost is US$378,312,000 and the tariff is 10.3632

PKR/kWh, and (iii) NTDCL was to pay SHPL the difference between what had been paid and the tariff that SHPL was entitled to under the PPA as determined by Award. SHPL began invoicing NTDCL for electricity sales at the tariff calculated in the Award.

On 7 August 2024, NTDCL issued an application in the Lahore High Court. The application was stated to be made under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011 (the “2011 Act”) for the partial recognition and enforcement of the Award. The 2011 Act implements the New York Convention in Pakistan. NTDCL did not seek enforcement of the part of the Award that held SHPL was entitled to a higher tariff under the PPA. NTDCL further asserted that the Award ousted the exclusive jurisdiction of NEPRA and is therefore in violation of Pakistani law. For that reason, NTDCL argued that the Award was not enforceable in Pakistan under Articles V(1)(a) and (c) and V(2)(a) and (b) of the New York Convention. The Lahore High Court made an interim order in favour of NTDCL that suspended the invoices by SHPL for the higher tariff.

SHPL issued an arbitration claim form in the English Commercial Court seeking an anti-suit injunction against NTDCL to restrain the proceedings in the Lahore High Court. The Commercial Court refused to grant an injunction against NTDCL. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by SHPL and granted an injunction. NTDCL now appeals to the Supreme Court.