This note considers the recent English High Court decision in Leidos Inc v The Hellenic Republic.1 Although the principal issue in the case concerned the allocation of the costs of the proceedings relating to the enforcement of an arbitral award, the arguments of the parties encompassed the novel issue as to the interpretation under s.103(2)(f) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”)2 of the word “suspended” or “suspension” of an arbitral award by the court at the seat of arbitration. Section 103(2) sets out the grounds upon which recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused. One of those grounds, under s.103(2)(f), is where the award has been “suspended by a competent authority of the country in which … it was made”.3 That provision incorporates and reflects the wording of Art.V(1)(e) of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement