Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy

Naftogaz failed to prove that the award was procured by fraud or that there was any reprehensible or unconscionable conduct sufficient to engage the public policy exception. The Russian courts had already considered and rejected the same or similar arguments. The insurance and reinsurance arrangements, though unusual, were not shown to be invalid under Russian law. The arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction, and there was no procedural injustice or suppression of documents that would justify refusing enforcement. Accordingly, there was no basis to set aside the order permitting enforcement of the award.

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 Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Enforcement Order
Outcome
Application to set aside enforcement order dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Public Policy Exception, Fraud in Arbitration, Subrogation, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
Arbitration Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Public Policy Exception Fraud in Arbitration Subrogation 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 4 Authorities cited 10 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 Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Enforcement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement of the Moscow arbitration award should be refused on grounds of public policy due to alleged fraud or unconscionable conduct
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral award was procured by fraud or suppression of material documents
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration tribunal had jurisdiction under the relevant contracts and Russian law

Ratio Decidendi

Naftogaz failed to prove that the award was procured by fraud or that there was any reprehensible or unconscionable conduct sufficient to engage the public policy exception. The Russian courts had already considered and rejected the same or similar arguments. The insurance and reinsurance arrangements, though unusual, were not shown to be invalid under Russian law. The arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction, and there was no procedural injustice or suppression of documents that would justify refusing enforcement. Accordingly, there was no basis to set aside the order permitting enforcement of the award.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside enforcement order dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Colman J permitting enforcement of the Moscow arbitration award stands
  • Application to set aside the freezing order and enforcement order is refused