Sinocore International Co Ltd v RBRG Trading (UK) Ltd

Sinocore International Co Ltd v RBRG Trading (UK) Ltd

Enforcement of the CIETAC award is not contrary to English public policy because the award is for damages for breach of contract by RBRG in instructing an amendment to the letter of credit, not for payment against forged documents. The arbitral tribunal was aware of the forgery and found RBRG's breach to be the operative cause of loss. The public interest in the finality of arbitration awards outweighs any objection based on the transaction being 'tainted' by fraud. Material non-disclosure and the risk of double recovery do not justify refusal of enforcement.

Parties
Claimant: Sinocore International Co Ltd; Defendant: RBRG Trading (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award / Application to Set Aside Order Granting Leave to Enforce Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application to set aside order dismissed; leave to enforce the award confirmed.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Public Policy Exception, Fraud and Illegality in Enforcement, Letters of Credit, Material Non Disclosure
Arbitration Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Public Policy Exception Fraud and Illegality in Enforcement Letters of Credit Material Non Disclosure

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

Parties

Sinocore International Co Ltd

Claimant

RBRG Trading (UK) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award / Application to Set Aside Order Granting Leave to Enforce Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement of the CIETAC arbitral award would be contrary to English public policy due to alleged fraud (presentation of forged bills of lading)
  2. 2 Whether the award is based on a fraudulent claim
  3. 3 Whether the risk of double recovery or material non-disclosure justifies refusal of enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

Enforcement of the CIETAC award is not contrary to English public policy because the award is for damages for breach of contract by RBRG in instructing an amendment to the letter of credit, not for payment against forged documents. The arbitral tribunal was aware of the forgery and found RBRG's breach to be the operative cause of loss. The public interest in the finality of arbitration awards outweighs any objection based on the transaction being 'tainted' by fraud. Material non-disclosure and the risk of double recovery do not justify refusal of enforcement.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside order dismissed; leave to enforce the award confirmed.

Orders

  • Sinocore's revised undertaking to prevent double recovery to be recorded in the order.
  • RBRG's application to set aside the order granting leave to enforce the award is dismissed.