Asset Management Corporation Of Nigeria v Qatar National Bank

Asset Management Corporation Of Nigeria v Qatar National Bank

The section 68 application was dismissed because the tribunal addressed all material issues, applied the correct legal principles, and any alleged errors were not within the scope of section 68. There was no serious irregularity or substantial injustice. The application was an impermissible challenge to the tribunal's findings on contract construction, not a failure to address issues.

Parties
Claimant: Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria; Defendant: Qatar National Bank
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Order Dismissing Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Serious Irregularity, Contract Interpretation, Preference Shares, Nigerian Law, Summary Dismissal
Arbitration Commercial Law Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Serious Irregularity Contract Interpretation Preference Shares Nigerian Law Summary Dismissal

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria

Claimant

Qatar National Bank

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Order Dismissing Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to deal with all issues put to it under section 68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether any serious irregularity caused substantial injustice to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal failed to apply relevant principles of Nigerian law

Ratio Decidendi

The section 68 application was dismissed because the tribunal addressed all material issues, applied the correct legal principles, and any alleged errors were not within the scope of section 68. There was no serious irregularity or substantial injustice. The application was an impermissible challenge to the tribunal's findings on contract construction, not a failure to address issues.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside Carr J's orders dismissed
  • Section 68 application remains dismissed