TENKE FUNGURUME MINING S.A. v KATANGA CONTRACTING SERVICES S.A.S.

TENKE FUNGURUME MINING S.A. v KATANGA CONTRACTING SERVICES S.A.S.

The Tribunal's decisions on adjournment, costs, and interest were within its discretionary powers and did not constitute serious irregularity or excess of power under section 68. The refusal to adjourn for site visit or counsel's illness, the costs award including litigation funding and success fee, and the compound interest award were not decisions that no reasonable arbitrator could have reached. No substantial injustice or public policy violation was established.

Parties
Claimant: Tenke Fungurume Mining S.A.; Defendant: Katanga Contracting Services S.A.S.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Section 68 Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Act 1996 Section 68, Serious Irregularity, Costs in Arbitration, Compound Interest, Litigation Funding, Procedural Fairness
Arbitration Commercial Law Arbitration Act 1996 Section 68 Serious Irregularity Costs in Arbitration Compound Interest Litigation Funding Procedural Fairness

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenke Fungurume Mining S.A.

Claimant

Katanga Contracting Services S.A.S.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Section 68 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to adjourn for site visit constituted serious irregularity under section 68
  2. 2 Whether refusal to adjourn due to counsel's illness constituted serious irregularity
  3. 3 Whether costs award including litigation funding and success fee was an excess of power or serious irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's decisions on adjournment, costs, and interest were within its discretionary powers and did not constitute serious irregularity or excess of power under section 68. The refusal to adjourn for site visit or counsel's illness, the costs award including litigation funding and success fee, and the compound interest award were not decisions that no reasonable arbitrator could have reached. No substantial injustice or public policy violation was established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No redactions or anonymisation ordered
  • All grounds of challenge under section 68 dismissed