Chenco Chemical Engineering And Consulting GmbH v DO Fluoride Chemicals Co. Ltd

Chenco Chemical Engineering And Consulting GmbH v DO Fluoride Chemicals Co. Ltd

DFD failed to prove by credible contemporaneous evidence that it made material changes to its reactors or core process after the award; the alleged redesign was not genuine and was fabricated during the present litigation. The court has jurisdiction to determine whether DFD ceased using Chenco’s Technology. Chenco is entitled to enforce the award for the post-award period, including liquidated damages and interest.

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 / Judgment After Trial on Post Award Enforcement
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant; enforcement of arbitral award for post-award period granted
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Breach of Contract, Liquidated Damages, Jurisdiction of Enforcement Court
Arbitration Commercial Law Contract Law Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Breach of Contract Liquidated Damages Jurisdiction of Enforcement Court

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 / Judgment After Trial on Post Award Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DFD continued to use Chenco’s Technology after the arbitral award and is liable for further liquidated damages
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to determine if DFD ceased use of Chenco’s Technology post-award
  3. 3 Whether DFD’s alleged reactor redesign in 2013 was genuine and sufficient to avoid liability under the award

Ratio Decidendi

DFD failed to prove by credible contemporaneous evidence that it made material changes to its reactors or core process after the award; the alleged redesign was not genuine and was fabricated during the present litigation. The court has jurisdiction to determine whether DFD ceased using Chenco’s Technology. Chenco is entitled to enforce the award for the post-award period, including liquidated damages and interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant; enforcement of arbitral award for post-award period granted

Orders

  • DFD to pay Chenco €4,000,000 in liquidated damages for May 2013 to August 2016
  • DFD to pay default interest as awarded by the tribunal, with updated calculation to be provided