A Nigerian arbitration award between two Nigerian companies was first subject to proceedings in Nigeria to set aside the award and subsequently to enforcement proceedings in England.
Held: Gross J refused to consider immediate enforcement. He adjourned the proceedings for the payment of what was common ground to be indisputably due and of a further $50 million by way of security, saying: ‘For present purposes, the relevant principles can be shortly stated. First, there can be no realistic doubt that s. 103 of the Act embodies a pre-disposition in favour of enforcement of the New York Convention Awards, reflecting the underlying purpose of the New York Convention itself; indeed, even when a ground for refusing enforcement is established, the court retains a discretion to enforce the award: Mustill and Boyd, Commercial Arbitration, 2nd edn, 2001 Companion, at page 87 . . Fourthly, section 103(5) ‘achieves a compromise between two equally legitimate concerns’: Fouchard, at page 981. On the one hand, enforcement should not be frustrated merely by the making of an application in the country of origin; on the other hand, pending proceedings in the country of origin should not necessarily be pre-empted by rapid enforcement of the award in another jurisdiction. Pro-enforcement assumptions are sometimes outweighed by the respect due to the courts exercising jurisdiction in the country of origin – the venue chosen by the parties for their arbitration: Mustill and Boyd, at page 90′
Judges:
Gross J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 726 (Comm), [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 326, [2005] 1 CLC 613
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dallah Estates and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government Of Pakistan CA 20-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce an international arbitration award against the defendant in respect of the provision of accommodation for Hajj pilgrims. A without notice order had been made to allow its enforcement, but that had been set aside.
See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation ComC 17-Apr-2008
The court considered its power to enforce a New York Convention award in circumstances where a challenge to the validity of the award is pending before the supervisory court. . .
Appeal from – Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd CA 21-Oct-2008
The court was asked ‘Can part of a New York Convention arbitration award be enforced? How should sequential applications for enforcement of such an award be approached? ‘
Held: A foreign arbitration award could be enforced within the UK only . .
See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation ComC 14-Mar-2014
IPCO applied to have enforced here a substantial arbitration award. NNPC replied that the award had been inflated by fraud.
Held: The fraud challenge was made bona fide. NNPC had a good prima facie case that IPCO practised a fraud on the . .
See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Costs) CA 10-Nov-2015
Challenge to order for payment of security for costs.
Christopher Clarke LJ said: ‘In the present case it seems to us that in reality it is NNPC, the Award debtor, which sought the continuance of the adjournment in the face of IPCO’s attempt to . .
See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation CA 10-Nov-2015
The court was asked whether the court below had been right to decline to enforce an arbitration award made in Nigeria in October 2004 and, instead, to continue an adjournment of the enforcement proceedings begun subsequently in this jurisdiction. . .
See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation SC 1-Mar-2017
The court was asked whether the appellant NNPC, should have to put up a further USD 100m security (in addition to USD 80m already provided) in respect of a Nigerian arbitration award which the respondent, had been seeking since November 2004 to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.224562