Laos to protect its interest in the Award during the proceedings and any subsequent appeals. On appeal, the Court observed that the New York Convention adopts an approach that does not require a party seeking enforcement of an award in what is known as a “secondary jurisdiction” (here, the United States) to await the conclusion of all appeals of the award that may be pursued in the “primary jurisdiction” (here, Malaysia). While uniquely empowering courts in the primary jurisdiction to set aside or annul an arbitral award, the Convention also anticipates that an arbitral party that has prevailed may sue elsewhere to enforce an award before the award has been reviewed by courts in the arbitral seat. Citing Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Pemex-Exploración y Producción (Pemex), the Court observed that although the permissive language used in Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention could be read to suggest that a district court has “unfettered discretion” as to whether to enforce such an award, the court's exercise of that discretion should rather be treated as “constrained by the prudential concern of international comity” and that Pemex also carved out a “public policy” exception to the comity principle for occasions when enforcing an arbitral award annulled in the primary jurisdiction is needed “to vindicate ‘fundamental notions of what is decent and just’ in the United States.” The Court held that when conducting a Rule 60(b)(5) analysis as to whether or not to relieve a party from a final judgment (for certain specified reasons, including that the judgment is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated) district courts should analyse the full range of Rule 60(b) considerations, including timeliness and the equities and to assign significant weight to considerations of international comity in the absence of a need to vindicate “ fundamental notions of what is decent and just’ in the United States.” Writing for the Court, Judge Susan Carney said Laos' conduct was not "sufficiently dilatory" to justify continued enforcement of a vacated arbitration award. To find otherwise, Judge Carney wrote, would be akin to levying a $57 million fine on Laos for misconduct. "A steep fine indeed, and one that the record gives no reason to think the district court would have imposed," the Judge said. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's order vacating the judgment. The Court concluded that the District Court did not exceed the permissible bounds of its discretion in refusing to order Laos to post security during the pendency of its Rule 60(b) motion and any subsequent appeals, nor did it err by refusing to enforce the English judgment. Boundary disputes
Boundary disputes can be messy. Once neighbours become embroiled in a dispute over the position of a boundary or the extent of a right of way, or the proximity of a proposed building to a boundary, it seems that nothing short of court intervention will settle the matter. There can be a huge financial impact on the parties concerned which can, and often does, outweigh the intrinsic value of the land under consideration. Such disputes can also affect relationships, frustrate the use and optimisation of the utility of land and buildings, and impede property transactions.