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 enforce the Award and bring the adjournment to an end. In its respondent’s notice NNPC said that, if the judge’s contingent exercise of his discretion was in error, he was nevertheless correct to conclude that it was appropriate to adjourn under section 103(5) so that the challenge could proceed in Nigeria inter alia because, if the court were minded to enforce the Award, it would still have to decide whether the enforcement of the award was contrary to English public policy. In other words it was relying on the possibility of a later English public policy challenge as a reason to uphold the continuance of the adjournment, ordered by consent on 17 June 2009, pending resolution of the fraud challenge in Nigeria, rather than suggesting that enforcement should only abide a section 103(3) determination.
So far as the ability of IPCO to enforce any judgment is concerned, much will depend on whether NNPC has sufficient assets in this country, or any other country in which an English judgment may be enforced, to ensure that it can swiftly receive the fruits of any judgment in its favour.
Although NNPC is a large business we have no details of its assets within such countries, or the form in which they are held, how long they have been held there, or how readily any trading arrangements might be changed so as to render enforcement difficult or impossible.
. . where there is a very large award, delay without security is inherently likely to prejudice the award creditor and certainly risks doing so. We regard that as a factor which should incline us towards providing some security to ensure that if the fraud challenge fails, IPCO will not be faced with a further round of attempts to avoid payment of the Award or a situation in which its prospects of recovery have worsened.
Another material factor is the need in a case involving such extraordinary delay, extending over a decade, to provide a strong incentive to securing finality. NNPL [sic] says that, now that the fraud challenge is to be heard in London, the prospects of excessive delay are much reduced. Hopefully so. But the history of these proceedings, and their inordinate delay, persuades us of the need to provide an incentive, indeed something of a goad, to progress.
Lastly we bear in mind that the delay which has already taken place has meant that the ratio between the amount of security in place and the amount due has greatly decreased. Interest under the award is running at 14% per annum. Gross J ordered that security of $ 50m be provided 10.5 years ago. $ 50m x 14% x 10 = $ 70m. The same exercise applied to the $ 30m security provided in 2008 produces about another $ 31.5m ($ 30m x 14% x 7.5).’
Christopher Clarke, Burnett, Sales LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1145
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 ComC 27-Apr-2005
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 . .
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. . .
See Also – 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 . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited by:
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. . .
At CA – 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.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554531