Andrei Mikhailovich Ovsyankin v Angophora Holdings Limited

Andrei Mikhailovich Ovsyankin v Angophora Holdings Limited

The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The 'Different Case' was either pleaded or in play, the applicants had a fair opportunity to respond, the tribunal complied with the LCIA rules and procedural orders, dealt with all essential issues, and there was no appearance of bias. The applications to set aside the award and remove the arbitrators were refused.

Parties
Claimant: Andrei Mikhailovich Ovsyankin; Defendant: Angophora Holdings Limited; Defendant: Valeriy Anatolievich Kirilov; Defendant/arbitrator: Dr Georg von Segesser; Defendant/arbitrator: Sir Jeremy Cooke; Defendant/arbitrator: Mr Khawar Qureshi QC; Claimant: Retemmy Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Related Application (challenge/removal of Arbitrators, Challenge to Award) / High Court Judgment on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 68 and 24
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Removal of Arbitrators Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24, Apparent Bias, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Pleading and Amendment in Arbitration, London Court of International Arbitration (lcia) Rules
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Removal of Arbitrators Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24 Apparent Bias Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Pleading and Amendment in Arbitration London Court of International Arbitration (lcia) Rules

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrei Mikhailovich Ovsyankin

Claimant

Angophora Holdings Limited

Defendant

Valeriy Anatolievich Kirilov

Defendant

Dr Georg von Segesser

Defendant/arbitrator

Sir Jeremy Cooke

Defendant/arbitrator

Mr Khawar Qureshi QC

Defendant/arbitrator

Retemmy Finance Limited

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Related Application (challenge/removal of Arbitrators, Challenge to Award) / High Court Judgment on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 68 and 24

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to act fairly or impartially
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal failed to comply with agreed procedure (LCIA Rules)

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The 'Different Case' was either pleaded or in play, the applicants had a fair opportunity to respond, the tribunal complied with the LCIA rules and procedural orders, dealt with all essential issues, and there was no appearance of bias. The applications to set aside the award and remove the arbitrators were refused.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • All applications under sections 68 and 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 are refused.