Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2008] EWHC 237 (Comm) (15 February 2008)

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2008] EWHC 237 (Comm) (15 February 2008)

The court held that the grounds advanced by Naftogaz, including allegations of fraud and public policy, did not meet the high threshold required to refuse enforcement of a New York Convention award. The Russian courts had already considered and rejected the same arguments. There was no sufficient evidence of fraud or public policy violation, nor any material non-disclosure that would justify setting aside the enforcement order.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 237 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Gater Assets Limited; Defendant/applicant: NAK Naftogaz Ukrainiy (National Joint Stock Company Naftogaz of Ukraine)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application to Set Aside Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Enforcement Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; enforcement of the arbitral award permitted.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Public Policy Exception, Subrogation, Fraud in Arbitral Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
Arbitration Commercial Law International Law Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Public Policy Exception Subrogation Fraud in Arbitral Proceedings Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gater Assets Limited

Claimant/respondent

NAK Naftogaz Ukrainiy (National Joint Stock Company Naftogaz of Ukraine)

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application to Set Aside Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Enforcement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement of the Moscow ICAC arbitral award should be refused on grounds of public policy under section 103(3) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the award was obtained by fraud
  3. 3 Whether there was a failure of full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the grounds advanced by Naftogaz, including allegations of fraud and public policy, did not meet the high threshold required to refuse enforcement of a New York Convention award. The Russian courts had already considered and rejected the same arguments. There was no sufficient evidence of fraud or public policy violation, nor any material non-disclosure that would justify setting aside the enforcement order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; enforcement of the arbitral award permitted.

Orders

  • Application to set aside ex parte enforcement order refused.
  • Freezing order over Naftogaz's assets in England and Wales continued.