Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Chiraag Shah and Harriet Sassoon authored an article for the Practical Law Arbitration Blog covering the opposing decisions between the English and French Courts in the Kabab-Ji v Kout Food Group case.

Take a Seat: English v French Enforcement Debate Continues as Paris Court of Appeal Rejects English Court’s Reasoning in Kabab-Ji v Kout Food Group

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Chiraag Shah authored an article for the Practical Law Arbitration Blog covering the opposing decisions between the English and French Courts in the Kabab-Ji v Kout Food Group case.“The Franchise Development Agreement contained a ‘no oral modification clause’ that the English Court considered relevant to its determination as to whether KFG had been joined as a party to the contract,” the authors wrote. “The Paris Court departed from this strict interpretation, placing reliance instead on the conduct of the parties. The Paris Court also made it clear that it would not be impacted by foreign decisions, noting that it could not ‘be limited by the existence of foreign decisions interpreting the [FDA] and the arbitration clause and applying English law to them.’”“The English Court of Appeal had already faced some criticism for not awaiting the decision from the Paris Court (being the court of the designated seat of arbitration) when delivering its decision in January 2020,” the authors added. “This conflicting decision will add further fuel to that debate.”Read the <a target="_blank" href="http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/take-a-seat-english-v-french-enforcement-debate-continues-as-paris-court-of-appeal-rejects-english-courts-reasoning-in-kabab-ji-v-kout-food-group/">full article</a>. Chiraag also previously covered the <a href="/resources/insights/200213-no-oral-modification-clause.html">English Court of Appeal’s February decision</a> in the case, which addressed the question of what law governs an arbitration agreement in the absence of an express provision.

Take a Seat: English v French Enforcement Debate Continues as Paris Court of Appeal Rejects English Court’s Reasoning in Kabab-Ji v Kout Food Group

Sign Up

Chiraag Shah

Partner

International Arbitration