Arbitration Law Monthly

In RAV Bahamas Ltd and Another v Therapy Beach Club Inc (Bahamas) [2021] UKPC 8 the Privy Council heard an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas. The local legislation, section 90 of the Arbitration Act 2009, is – as far as serious irregularity is concerned – all but identical to section 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996. The decision is important in its discussion of the relationship between the twin requirements of serious irregularity and substantial injustice caused by it.

In 1955 Capital Fund I GP LLC and Another v Global Industrial Investment Ltd [2020] HKCFI 956 the Hong Kong Court of First Instance set aside an enforcement order made ex parte, on the ground that the applicant for enforcement had been in breach of its duty to make full disclosure. The case is discussed by Edward Liu, Legal Director, Hill Dickinson Hong Kong.

In PAO Tatneft v Ukraine [2020] EWHC 3161 (Comm); [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 240 Ukraine contested the enforcement of an arbitration award under the New York Convention on the ground that there had been illegality which prevented a valid submission to arbitration. The questions for Sir Andrew Smith were whether Ukraine was precluded from raising illegality as a defence by reason of abuse of process (in that it had not been raised in earlier proceedings challenging the award on the ground of state immunity) and waiver (in that the issue had not been raised before the tribunal).

In Chenco Chemical Engineering and Consulting GmbH v DO Fluoride Chemicals Co Ltd [2021] EWHC 1052 (Comm) Jacobs J confirmed that any question as to whether conditions in an award had been met, or whether there had been a change in circumstances following the making of the award, were a matter for the enforcing court and not the tribunal.

In SRS Middle East FZE v Chemie Tech DMCC [2020] EWHC 2904 (Comm) the claimant sought an anti-suit injunction to prevent the defendant from continuing with judicial proceedings in Sharjah in breach of an arbitration clause. The defendant’s response was that it had obtained interim measures from the Sharjah court and that it was necessary to bring a substantive claim if those measures were to be maintained. Andrew Baker J held that in such a case an anti-suit injunction should be granted: if the price of obtaining interim measures was substantive proceedings, then the arbitration clause was to take priority.