Sonatrach v Statoil [2014] EWHC 875 (Comm) (02 April 2014)

Sonatrach v Statoil [2014] EWHC 875 (Comm) (02 April 2014)

The tribunal did not overlook or mischaracterise evidence, nor breach its duty under s.33; the administrative secretary did not participate in deliberations; alternative service was valid and post-award interest was properly awarded under the Judgments Act after enforcement as a judgment.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 875 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant (731) / Defendant (935): La Société pour la Recherche, la Production, le Transport, la Transformation et la Commercialisation des Hydrocarbures S. P. A ("Sonatrach"); Defendant (731) / Claimant (935): Statoil Natural Gas LLC ("Statoil")
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68 and S.66 / High Court (commercial Court) Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award and Enforcement Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Condition Precedent in Contracts, Government Approval of Contracts, Alternative Service of Enforcement Orders, Interest on Judgment Debts
Arbitration Commercial Law Contract Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Condition Precedent in Contracts Government Approval of Contracts Alternative Service of Enforcement Orders +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

La Société pour la Recherche, la Production, le Transport, la Transformation et la Commercialisation des Hydrocarbures S. P. A ("Sonatrach")

Claimant (731) / Defendant (935)

Statoil Natural Gas LLC ("Statoil")

Defendant (731) / Claimant (935)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.68 and S.66 / High Court (commercial Court) Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award and Enforcement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to comply with its general duty under s.33
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal overlooked or mischaracterised critical evidence
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal improperly delegated authority to its administrative secretary

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not overlook or mischaracterise evidence, nor breach its duty under s.33; the administrative secretary did not participate in deliberations; alternative service was valid and post-award interest was properly awarded under the Judgments Act after enforcement as a judgment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Sonatrach's application to set aside the award under s.68 dismissed
  • Challenge to interest order dismissed