OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG

OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG

Petrom has not satisfied the exacting test for abuse of process. It would be more unfair to prevent Glencore from defending itself against serious allegations of fraud than to require Petrom to prove its case. The application is late, lacks mutuality, and would render the defence incoherent. The fact that the prior findings were made in arbitration and not court proceedings, and that Petrom was not a party, further weakens the application.

Parties
Claimant: OMV Petrom SA; Defendant: Glencore International AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application (strike Out for Abuse of Process)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Confidentiality of Arbitration, Collateral Attack, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arbitration Abuse of Process Res Judicata Confidentiality of Arbitration Collateral Attack Strike Out Applications

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OMV Petrom SA

Claimant

Glencore International AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application (strike Out for Abuse of Process)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is an abuse of process for Glencore to relitigate issues determined in a prior arbitration in which Petrom was not a party
  2. 2 Whether findings from a confidential arbitration can preclude defences in subsequent court proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the application to strike out parts of the defence is justified

Ratio Decidendi

Petrom has not satisfied the exacting test for abuse of process. It would be more unfair to prevent Glencore from defending itself against serious allegations of fraud than to require Petrom to prove its case. The application is late, lacks mutuality, and would render the defence incoherent. The fact that the prior findings were made in arbitration and not court proceedings, and that Petrom was not a party, further weakens the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Petrom’s application to strike out parts of the defence for abuse of process is refused.
  • Glencore’s application regarding confidentiality of the award is not pursued and left for the trial judge.