Sonatrach v Statoil

Sonatrach v Statoil

The tribunal did not overlook material evidence or mischaracterise witness testimony; the MEM letter was not relevant to the tribunal’s findings once it determined the constant practice did not apply. The tribunal did not improperly delegate its functions to its secretary. The order for alternative service was proper and retrospectively validated, and the award of post-judgment interest was correct under the Judgments Act 1838.

Parties
Claimant (2013 Folio 731), Defendant (2013 Folio 935): La Société pour la Recherche, la Production, le Transport, la Transformation et la Commercialisation des Hydrocarbures S.P.A (Sonatrach); Defendant (2013 Folio 731), Claimant (2013 Folio 935): Statoil Natural Gas LLC (Statoil)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award and Enforcement Order / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award and Enforcement Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Interest on Arbitral Awards, Due Process in Arbitration, Role of Arbitral Tribunal Secretary
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Interest on Arbitral Awards Due Process in Arbitration Role of Arbitral Tribunal Secretary

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 17 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 (2013 Folio 731), Defendant (2013 Folio 935)

Statoil Natural Gas LLC (Statoil)

Defendant (2013 Folio 731), Claimant (2013 Folio 935)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award and Enforcement Order / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award and Enforcement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by overlooking material evidence or mischaracterising witness evidence
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal improperly delegated its decision-making to its administrative secretary
  3. 3 Whether the order for alternative service and post-award interest was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not overlook material evidence or mischaracterise witness testimony; the MEM letter was not relevant to the tribunal’s findings once it determined the constant practice did not apply. The tribunal did not improperly delegate its functions to its secretary. The order for alternative service was proper and retrospectively validated, and the award of post-judgment interest was correct under the Judgments Act 1838.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Sonatrach’s application to set aside the arbitral award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • Sonatrach’s challenge to the order for post-judgment interest is dismissed.