Chantiers De L'atlantique SA v Gaztransport & Technigaz SAS

Chantiers De L'atlantique SA v Gaztransport & Technigaz SAS

Although GTT, through its witness M Chapot, deliberately misled the arbitral tribunal by concealing the B0 test results and misrepresenting the provenance of the B1-B5 tests, CAT failed to prove that disclosure of the true position would probably have affected the outcome of the arbitration. The tribunal’s findings were based on multiple lines of evidence and legal conclusions under French law that would not have changed even if the fraud had been revealed. Therefore, the threshold for setting aside the award under section 68(2)(g) was not met.

Parties
Claimant: Chantiers de l’Atlantique S.A.; Defendant: Gaztransport & Technigaz S.A.S.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Section 68(2)(g) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Fraud in Arbitration, Disclosure Obligations in Arbitration, Issue Estoppel, Approval of Technical Materials
Arbitration Commercial Law Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Fraud in Arbitration Disclosure Obligations in Arbitration Issue Estoppel Approval of Technical Materials

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chantiers de l’Atlantique S.A.

Claimant

Gaztransport & Technigaz S.A.S.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Section 68(2)(g) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award was obtained by fraud under section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether there was deliberate concealment of material test results by GTT
  3. 3 Whether the alleged fraud would have affected the outcome of the arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

Although GTT, through its witness M Chapot, deliberately misled the arbitral tribunal by concealing the B0 test results and misrepresenting the provenance of the B1-B5 tests, CAT failed to prove that disclosure of the true position would probably have affected the outcome of the arbitration. The tribunal’s findings were based on multiple lines of evidence and legal conclusions under French law that would not have changed even if the fraud had been revealed. Therefore, the threshold for setting aside the award under section 68(2)(g) was not met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • CAT’s application under section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.