An arbitration agreement concluded digitally without a wet signature does not constitute an obstacle to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Netherlands. This was the ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 25 August 2026. The judgment illustrates how strictly the court interprets the 1958 New York Convention and what happens if a defendant remains uncooperative.
The case
V-Wave Shipping S.A., based in Monrovia (Liberia), entered into a charter party on 4 March 2021 with a defendant based in Amsterdam for the seagoing vessel Vantage Wave. That charter party contained an arbitration clause: disputes were to be settled by arbitrators in London, under English law, in accordance with the rules of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA).
A dispute arose between the parties. The London arbitral tribunal issued three arbitral (interim) awards. In the Partial Final Award of 7 November 2024, the arbitral tribunal found the defendant liable. This was followed by the Second Partial Final Award of 30 December 2024, ordering the defendant to pay US$ 1,031,150.81 plus interest. In the Third Partial Final Award of 11 April 2025, the defendant was ordered to pay EUR 425,312.28 plus interest and additional costs. None of the awards was subject to appeal. The defendant failed to pay.
V-Wave applied to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal for recognition and leave to enforce the three awards in the Netherlands. The respondent did not appear: it did not file a statement of defence and failed to appear at the oral hearing on 13 August 2026.
The legal issue
The central question was whether V-Wave had complied with the documentation requirements of the 1958 New York Convention, specifically Article IV(1), preamble and subparagraph (b). That article requires the applicant to submit the arbitration agreement, or a certified copy thereof, with its application.
The problem: V-Wave did not have an original copy of the arbitration agreement bearing a wet signature. The charterparty had been concluded digitally. The agreement had been concluded by the exchange, via email, of a scanned copy signed by both parties. V-Wave submitted that scanned copy.
The question was therefore whether a scanned agreement is sufficient in the absence of the original written agreement bearing a wet signature, and if so, under what conditions.
The ruling
The Court of Appeal ruled that the requirement of Article IV(1)(b) of the 1958 New York Convention is satisfied if the Court of Appeal independently determines that the arbitration clause was validly agreed between the parties. That was the case here.
The Court of Appeal referred to the content of the Fixture Note dated 4 March 2021. It explicitly stated that arbitration would take place exclusively in London under English law, and that the BIMCO dispute resolution clause, including the LMAA procedure, applied. Furthermore, the rider clauses contained a separate Law and Arbitration Clause prescribing arbitration in London under the LMAA rules.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found that neither party had raised the invalidity of the arbitration clause during the arbitration proceedings. The arbitral tribunal had not devoted any explicit consideration to this, but the absence of such consideration actually confirmed that the clause had not been in dispute. V-Wave had also expressly stated this in its application. None of the grounds for refusal set out in Article V of the 1958 New York Convention applied.
The Court of Appeal granted recognition to all three awards. In respect of the awards of 30 December 2024 and 11 April 2025, the Court of Appeal also granted leave to enforce them. The judgment of 7 November 2024 was purely declaratory in nature: it established liability without ordering payment. At the hearing, V-Wave stated that it had no specific interest in the enforcement of that judgement. The application for enforcement was dismissed on that point; however, recognition was granted.
The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, estimated at EUR 2,580.00 for the solicitor’s fees (rate II, 2 points). The orders were declared enforceable with immediate effect.
Implications for practice
This order confirms the approach taken by Dutch courts in applying the 1958 New York Convention: the absence of an original arbitration agreement bearing a wet signature is not automatically fatal. The court may fulfil the requirement of Article IV(1)(b) by independently determining that the arbitration clause was validly concluded. To this end, it considers the contractual documentation as a whole: the Fixture Note, the rider clauses, and the parties’ conduct during the arbitration proceedings.
Digital contract formation has long been the norm in the shipping sector and beyond. This ruling underlines that this does not constitute an obstacle to enforcement in the Netherlands, provided that the supporting documentation is conclusive and the clause was uncontested in the arbitration proceedings.
The decision on the declaratory judgement is equally relevant in practical terms. Recognition and enforcement are two separate steps. A judgment that merely establishes liability without imposing a payment obligation does not constitute an enforceable title. Whilst its recognition may play a role in other proceedings, enforcement requires an actual order for payment.
What you can do
If you have a foreign arbitral award and the other party refuses to pay, recognition and enforcement in the Netherlands via the 1958 New York Convention is, in many cases, an effective route. The threshold is low if the grounds for refusal under Article V do not apply, but the documentation must be in order: ensure that you can produce the arbitration agreement or a reliable copy thereof, and establish that the arbitration clause was not contested during the arbitration proceedings.
If you are on the other side of the table and wish to contest such a request, acting at an early stage is essential. Failing to appear, as the defendant did in this case, leaves the court without any counter-arguments and makes an order for costs virtually certain.
TK is happy to advise on the evidential position regarding arbitration clauses, the prospects of an exequatur application and the litigation strategy for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
Would you like more information?
Please contact Michiel or one of the other professionals from the Corporate & Commercial Litigation.
.jpg?h=315&fit=crop-50-50)
.jpg?h=315&fit=crop-50-50)
