Halimeda v Maple Ridge

In Halimeda International Ltd v Maple Ridge Limited, the District Court of Limassol recognized and allowed enforcement of an LCIA costs award against Maple Ridge.

Halimeda had won in an LCIA arbitration over loan debts and then sought to enforce the award for costs in Cyprus. Maple Ridge resisted enforcement on three grounds.

In Maple Ridge's view, Halimeda had chosen the wrong statute by relying on Cyprus's International Commercial Arbitration Law rather than the New York Convention route.

Maple Ridge also objected to the absence of Greek translations. Its main fairness point was that the tribunal had refused to adjourn the merits hearing while Maple Ridge pursued documents in related English proceedings.

The court rejected those objections. The arbitration had given Maple Ridge notice, lawyers, document-production opportunities, and a reasoned ruling on adjournment; the enforcement court would not reopen the tribunal's case-management decision as a public-policy objection.

Background

Halimeda and Maple Ridge were Cyprus companies. Their dispute arose from loan agreements that contained an arbitration clause. In LCIA arbitration no. 204884, Maple Ridge first disputed whether Halimeda could sue as assignee of the loans from Far East Capital. The tribunal rejected that objection in a February 2023 partial award, holding that Halimeda could pursue the arbitration. Abuse-of-process and conspiracy defenses then remained, framed as a possible answer to the loan claim. Maple Ridge later withdrew those defenses after the tribunal refused an adjournment of the October-November 2024 hearing.

The tribunal issued a Partial Final Award on 2 November 2024, amended by a memorandum dated 3 December 2024. It then issued a Final Award on Costs on 3 March 2025, amended by a memorandum dated 27 March 2025. Halimeda applied in Cyprus to recognize, register, and enforce the costs award. A separate Cyprus application for the Partial Final Award was also pending.

Maple Ridge made three main objections. It argued that the New York Convention and Cyprus Law 84/1979 had to supply the route for the application, instead of Article 35 of Law 101/1987 alone. It argued that Halimeda had not supplied certified Greek translations of the award and arbitration agreement. It also argued that enforcement would breach natural justice and Cyprus public policy because the LCIA tribunal refused to adjourn the merits hearing while Maple Ridge tried to get documents from the English UMC proceedings.

The Court's Decision

The court accepted that Halimeda could use Law 101/1987 as the enforcement route. Article 35 of that law provides a more favorable regime than Article IV of the New York Convention because it does not make certified translations mandatory in the same way. The court treated that result as consistent with Article VII of the New York Convention, which preserves more favorable national enforcement rules. The court also held that, even if Halimeda should have mentioned the Convention and Law 84/1979 in the legal basis, the omission would have been a formal point rather than a reason to defeat the application. In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on the UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide, Beogradska Banka, ERTASIO Holdings v Joint Commercial Bank "Bank of Moscow", SAPA v ENVITEC, Palladium Holdings v Phoenix Pharmacy, Parico Aluminium Designs v Muskita Aluminium, and Bristol Business Corporation v Besuno.

The court then turned to Maple Ridge's fair-hearing and public-policy objections. Article 36 of Law 101/1987 contains refusal grounds that match Article V(1)(b) and Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. Those grounds are narrow. They do not let an enforcement court retry the arbitration. Nor do they let the court revise the tribunal's procedural choices because another tribunal might have adjourned the hearing.

Maple Ridge's complaint was about the tribunal's refusal to delay the hearing. The tribunal had considered that request in a 16-page procedural ruling dated 15 July 2024. The tribunal noted that the parties had fixed the hearing more than a year earlier. The arbitration had already suffered delay, the tribunal had granted earlier adjournments, and a further adjournment could push final resolution back by at least two years. The tribunal also considered the uncertainty around whether the English proceedings would ever produce documents useful to Maple Ridge. The Cyprus court held that this was a reasoned case-management decision, made within the tribunal's powers.

In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on Attorney General of Kenya v Bank Fur Arbeit Uno Wirtschaft AG for the meaning of public policy, SAPA v ENVITEC and Betamax Ltd v State Trading Corp for the limited role of an enforcement court, and Beogradska Banka and ERTASIO Holdings v Joint Commercial Bank "Bank of Moscow" for the rule that public policy is not a back door into the merits. The court also referred to Westacre Investments v Jugoimport-SPDR, Minmetals Germany v Ferco Steel, and the UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide for the point that an enforcement court may look at whether the resisting party could have raised the complaint before the tribunal or at the seat. Maple Ridge had not challenged the award in England under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, and the time for doing so had long passed.

The court also relied on Fatsita v Fatsita, Tsouloftas v Michael (No 2), and Hadjikyriakou v Koullermou for the general principle that adjournment requests require a balance between a party's right to present its case and the court or tribunal's duty to resolve disputes within a reasonable time.

Result

The District Court of Limassol ordered recognition, registration, and enforcement of the LCIA Final Award on Costs dated 3 March 2025, as amended on 27 March 2025. Maple Ridge's objections failed. The court awarded Halimeda costs of EUR 12,000 plus VAT.