Nomihold Securites Inc v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA [2011] EWHC 2143 (Comm) (01 August 2011)

Nomihold Securites Inc v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA [2011] EWHC 2143 (Comm) (01 August 2011)

The court held that there is a legitimate interest in enforcement in England, even absent assets, due to the need for a worldwide freezing order and to preclude the defendant from evading payment. The objections of money laundering and fraud were rejected: the money laundering allegation did not relate to the award or its enforcement under English public policy, and the fraud/perjury allegation failed the Ladd v Marshall test as the evidence was not new, not cogent, and would not have influenced the arbitral tribunal's decision. The court exercised its discretion under s66 to enforce the award as a judgment.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2143 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Nomihold Securities Inc; Defendant/respondent: Mobile Telesystems Finance SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Enforcement Order Under S66 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application to set aside enforcement order dismissed; award enforced as judgment.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Public Policy Exception, Fraud and Perjury in Arbitration, Freezing Orders, Money Laundering Allegations, Discretion Under S66 Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Commercial Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Public Policy Exception Fraud and Perjury in Arbitration Freezing Orders Money Laundering Allegations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomihold Securities Inc

Claimant/applicant

Mobile Telesystems Finance SA

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Enforcement Order Under S66 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award should be enforced as a judgment under s66 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether enforcement would be contrary to English public policy due to alleged money laundering
  3. 3 Whether the award was obtained by fraud or perjury

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there is a legitimate interest in enforcement in England, even absent assets, due to the need for a worldwide freezing order and to preclude the defendant from evading payment. The objections of money laundering and fraud were rejected: the money laundering allegation did not relate to the award or its enforcement under English public policy, and the fraud/perjury allegation failed the Ladd v Marshall test as the evidence was not new, not cogent, and would not have influenced the arbitral tribunal's decision. The court exercised its discretion under s66 to enforce the award as a judgment.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside enforcement order dismissed; award enforced as judgment.

Orders

  • Enforcement of the arbitral award as a judgment under s66 Arbitration Act 1996
  • Continuation of the worldwide freezing order