Chenco Chemical Engineering And Consulting GmbH v DO Fluoride Chemicals Co. Ltd [2021] EWHC 1052 (Comm) (26 April 2021)

Chenco Chemical Engineering And Consulting GmbH v DO Fluoride Chemicals Co. Ltd [2021] EWHC 1052 (Comm) (26 April 2021)

The court found DFD failed to prove it made material changes to its reactors or ceased using Chenco's Technology after the award. The absence of credible contemporaneous documentation, inconsistencies in DFD's evidence, and the inherent improbability of DFD implementing changes while resisting all other aspects of the award led the court to conclude DFD continued to use Chenco's Technology until the contractual backstop date. The court also held it had jurisdiction to determine these issues under the terms of the prior order and applicable law.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1052 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Chenco Chemical Engineering and Consulting GmbH; Defendant: Do Fluoride Chemicals Co. Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Post Award Enforcement Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Breach of Contract, Use of Proprietary Technology, Liquidated Damages, Jurisdiction of English Courts Under Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Commercial Law Contract Law Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Breach of Contract Use of Proprietary Technology Liquidated Damages Jurisdiction of English Courts Under Arbitration Act 1996

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chenco Chemical Engineering and Consulting GmbH

Claimant

Do Fluoride Chemicals Co. Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Post Award Enforcement Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DFD continued to use Chenco's Technology after the arbitral award
  2. 2 Whether DFD made material changes to its process/reactor to cease use of Chenco's Technology
  3. 3 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to determine post-award use and enforcement issues

Ratio Decidendi

The court found DFD failed to prove it made material changes to its reactors or ceased using Chenco's Technology after the award. The absence of credible contemporaneous documentation, inconsistencies in DFD's evidence, and the inherent improbability of DFD implementing changes while resisting all other aspects of the award led the court to conclude DFD continued to use Chenco's Technology until the contractual backstop date. The court also held it had jurisdiction to determine these issues under the terms of the prior order and applicable law.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • DFD to pay Chenco €100,000 per month for the period May 2013 to August 2016 pursuant to paragraphs 414 and 417 of the Final Award, plus interest until payment.