Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 684.0027 (2025)
Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
684.0027 Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement.—
(1) Recognition or enforcement of an interim measure may be refused only:
(a) At the request of the party against whom it is invoked if the court is satisfied that:
1. Such refusal is warranted on the grounds set forth in s. 684.0048(1)(a)1., 2., 3., or 4.;
2. The arbitral tribunal’s decision with respect to the provision of security in connection with the interim measure issued by the arbitral tribunal has not been complied with; or
3. The interim measure was terminated or suspended by the arbitral tribunal or, if so empowered, by the court of the state or country in which the arbitration takes place or under the law of which that interim measure was granted; or
(b) If the court finds that:
1. The interim measure is incompatible with the powers conferred upon the court, unless the court decides to reformulate the interim measure to the extent necessary to adapt it to its own powers and procedures for the purpose of enforcing that interim measure and without modifying its substance; or
2. Any of the grounds set forth in s. 684.0048(1)(b)1. or 2. apply to the recognition and enforcement of the interim measure.
(2) A determination made by the court on any ground in subsection (1) is effective only for the purposes of the application to recognize and enforce the interim measure. The court may not in making that determination undertake a review of the substance of the interim measure.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2011–2013 · leading case: Costa v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
Costa v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2011). “§§ 201-08 ; and, the Florida International Arbitration Act (the FIAA), Fla. Stat. § 684.0027 . The crux of Plaintiffs’ claimed defenses are as follows: (1) vacatur is appropriate under Chapter 1 of the FAA § 10(a)(3) and (4) because the Arbitrator failed to consider evidence…”
Gonsalvez v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2013). “§§ 201-08 ; and, the Florida International Arbitration Act (the FIAA), Fla. Stat. § 684.0027 . The crux of Plaintiffs’ claimed defenses are as follows: (1) vacatur is appropriate under Chapter 1 of the FAA § 10(a)(3) and (4) because the Arbitrator failed to consider evidence…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.