Svenska Petroleum Exploration Ab v Lithuania and Another (No 2): ComC 4 Nov 2005

The court was asked whether a claim to enforce an arbitration award constituted ‘proceedings relating to’ the transaction that gave rise to the award for the purposes of section 3(1)(a).
Held: It did not.


Gloster J, DBE


[2005] EWHC 2437 (Comm), [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 181




State Immunity Act 1978 3(1)


See AlsoSvenska Petroleum Exploration Ab v Government of the Republic of Lithuania and Another ComC 11-Jan-2005
The claimant sought enforcement of a final award. The Government of Lithuania had not attempted to challenge the tribunal’s first award in Denmark.
Held: Nigel Teare QC said that that, where a person has unsuccessfully contested the issue of . .
AppliedAIC Limited v The Federal Government of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria QBD 13-Jun-2003
AIC had used the 1920 Act to register a judgment obtained in Nigeria against the Nigerian Government. The underlying matter was a commercial transaction. Nigeria applied to set the registration aside, saying that registration was an adjudicative act . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromSvenska Petroleum Exploration Ab v Lithuania and Another (No 2) CA 13-Nov-2006
The defendant state could not now claim state immunity to avoid enforcement of an arbitration award, having agreed to the reference to arbitration in writing.
Held: A person against whom an award has been made is not bound to challenge it . .
CitedNML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234738