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 enforce here. It was alleged that the award had involved a fraudulent inflation of the amount claimed. NNPC appealed from an order for security, in essence on the ground that the order was made without jurisdiction or wrong in principle and/or was illegitimate in circumstances where NNPC has a good prima facie case of fraud entitling it to resist enforcement of the whole award.
Held: The Court of Appeal erred: ‘It required security, not as the price of a further adjournment falling within section 103(5), but as the price of the decision of an issue under section 103(3). The Court was lifting the adjournments previously ordered pending the outcome of the Nigerian proceedings, not ordering an adjournment. It had no power under section 103 to make a decision of the properly arguable case raised by NNPC under section 103(3) conditional on NNPC providing further security.’
Judges:
Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lord Toulson
Citations:
[2017] UKSC 16, [2018] 1 All ER 738, [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 191, [2017] 1 WLR 970, [2017] 1 CLC 195, [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 508, UKSC 2015/0247
Links:
Bailii, SC, SCSUmmary, SC Summary Video, SC 020217am Video, SC 020217 pm Video
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
At First Instance – 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 . .
At CA – 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 . .
At CA – 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. . .
Cited – Soleh Boneh International Ltd v Government of the Republic of Uganda CA 1993
When asked to order provision of security on an application not to enforce an arbitration award, the right approach is that of a sliding scale. The court referred to assessing the strength of the argument that the award is invalid ‘on a brief . .
Cited – Yukos Oil Company v Dardana Ltd CA 18-Apr-2002
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in Sweden, even though it had yet to give its final adjudication on the defence under the New York Convention argued by the defendant.
Held: The Act cannot have been intended to give the . .
Cited – Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy CA 17-Oct-2007
The defendant resisted enforcement of a Moscow arbitration award saying it had been obtained by fraud, and sought security for costs.
The Court addressed the issue of security for the future costs of a challenge under section 103(3), which . .
Cited – A v B (Arbitration: Security) ComC 16-Dec-2010
. .
Cited – Huscroft v P and O Ferries Ltd CA 21-Dec-2010
Second appeal against order requiring sum for security for costs to be paid into court and in default for the claim to be struck out.
Held: The Court considered its jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs under rule 3.1 and, . .
Cited – Deutsche Bank Ag and Others v Unitech Global Ltd and Others CA 3-Mar-2016
Second interlocutory appeal in the battle between Deutsche Bank and other creditors who have brought two actions in the Commercial Court to recover amounts due under loan or swap agreements which used LIBOR as a reference rate in the calculation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.577936