Hashwani & Ors v OMV Maurice Energy Ltd

Hashwani & Ors v OMV Maurice Energy Ltd

The claim by OMV against OPL (both FWIOs) falls within Article 28 of the PCA and the ICC arbitration clause; the arbitration agreement is valid and not superseded by the FOA. The dispute between OMV and ZPCL (a PWIO) raises more doubt, but the issue of ICC jurisdiction over that claim should be left to the arbitral tribunal to decide. Relief under s.72 Arbitration Act 1996 is refused.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Sadruddin Hashwani; Claimant: Zaver Petroleum Corporation Limited; Claimant: Ocean Pakistan Limited; Defendant: OMV Maurice Energy Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Related Proceedings / Application for Injunction and Stay; Jurisdictional Challenge Under S.72 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application under s.72 Arbitration Act 1996 refused; OMV's application for stay succeeds in part; ICC to determine its own jurisdiction over ZPCL claim.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Concurrent Arbitration Clauses, Contractual Construction, Stay of Proceedings
Arbitration Commercial Law Oil and Gas Law Arbitration Agreement Interpretation Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Concurrent Arbitration Clauses Contractual Construction Stay of Proceedings

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

Parties

Mr Sadruddin Hashwani

Claimant

Zaver Petroleum Corporation Limited

Claimant

Ocean Pakistan Limited

Claimant

OMV Maurice Energy Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Related Proceedings / Application for Injunction and Stay; Jurisdictional Challenge Under S.72 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 28 of the PCA and Article 17 of the JOA constitute a valid arbitration agreement covering the disputes between OMV and OPL/ZPCL
  2. 2 Whether the ICC has jurisdiction over the disputes between OMV and OPL (both FWIOs) and OMV and ZPCL (FWIO and PWIO)
  3. 3 Whether the FOA arbitration clause supersedes or overrides the JOA/PCA arbitration provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The claim by OMV against OPL (both FWIOs) falls within Article 28 of the PCA and the ICC arbitration clause; the arbitration agreement is valid and not superseded by the FOA. The dispute between OMV and ZPCL (a PWIO) raises more doubt, but the issue of ICC jurisdiction over that claim should be left to the arbitral tribunal to decide. Relief under s.72 Arbitration Act 1996 is refused.

Court Disposition

Application under s.72 Arbitration Act 1996 refused; OMV's application for stay succeeds in part; ICC to determine its own jurisdiction over ZPCL claim.

Orders

  • Refusal of injunction and relief under s.72 Arbitration Act 1996 for OPL and ZPCL
  • Stay of proceedings granted in favour of ICC arbitration for OMV-OPL dispute