The English High Court (the Court) in Eleni Shipping Limited v Transgrain Shipping B.V.  EWHC 910 (Comm) has reviewed an arbitral award, following an appeal on a point of law brought under s69 Arbitration Act 1996 (s69 AA 1996), and determined that the tribunal made an error of law. While the Court ultimately refused to overturn the award, as it upheld the tribunal’s interpretation of the second point of law in question, this case is nevertheless significant as a rare example of the Court ruling that the tribunal had erred under s69.
Tag: Natalie Yarrow
The English Court (the “Court“) has dismissed an application by Ukraine to set aside a court order permitting Russian investor, PAO Tatneft, to enforce an arbitral award against Ukraine. Ukraine argued that it was immune from the Court’s jurisdiction by virtue of the State Immunity Act 1978. The Court found that Ukraine had not waived its right to rely on state immunity arguments, despite not having raising them in the arbitration. However, it found that Ukraine had agreed to submit the disputes in question to arbitration under the Russia-Ukraine Bilateral Investment Treaty (the “BIT“) and was therefore not immune from proceedings in connection with the arbitration by virtue of s9(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA“).
In the recent case of X v Y  EWHC 741 (Comm), the English High Court dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award under s68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) on the basis that the claimant should have first exhausted all remedies available to it by applying to the tribunal for correction or clarification of the award under s57(3) of the Act. The Court found that a tribunal had power under Article 27.1 of the LCIA Rules 1998 to clarify ambiguity in the award, and that Article 27.1 did not, in any case, oust the tribunal’s equivalent power under s57(3) of the Act. The wording of Article 27.1 in the LCIA Rules 2014 now expressly refers to correcting any ambiguity.
The case is a useful reminder to unsuccessful parties to analyse quickly and thoroughly an award and to ensure that any available process under s57 is exhausted before an application is made under s68. In particular, those who consider that the tribunal’s award is deficient for failing to deal with all issues put to it should assess whether such a complaint may be dealt with under s57(3) as a failure to give (adequate) reasons.
The Netherlands has released a new draft investment treaty for public comment (“Draft BIT“). If adopted, the Draft BIT may raise questions about the Kingdom’s attractiveness for foreign investors who have long taken advantage of Dutch treaty protections by structuring their investment via companies in the Netherlands. The Netherlands proposes to use the new model as a basis for renegotiating its existing BITs with non-EU states, and, as such, the new draft’s more restrictive provisions may be significant for existing investors with protection under existing BITs, as well as those considering future investments. Key features of the Draft BIT are considered below.
In its recent judgment in Progas Energy Limited and ors v Pakistan , the English High Court (the Court) granted Pakistan’s request for security for their costs in defending a challenge to an investment treaty award. The Court declined Pakistan’s application for security for its unpaid costs in the arbitration awarded to them by the tribunal. The case is of particular interest because the Court considered the relevance to the applications of the fact that the Claimants were funded by a third-party funder.
An ICSID tribunal has rejected a State's application for security for costs in circumstances in which the other party had third-party funding in the form of ATE insurance which specifically provided for cover of the State's costs.
Italy's request for security for costs
The application formed part of arbitral proceedings brought by Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione ("Eskosol") under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention against the Italian Republic ("Italy"). Italy sought security for costs in support of its ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) application for summary dismissal of Eskosol's claims on the basis that they are manifestly without legal merit.
In C v D  EWHC 1893 (Comm), the Commercial Court (the Court) dismissed an attempt to set aside an LCIA Award. The claimants brought challenges to a partial award on the grounds of substantive jurisdiction (s67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996)) and serious irregularity (s68 AA 1996). Both challenges were squarely rejected by the Court. Click here for a copy of the judgment.