OWH SE iL v RTI Ltd & Anor

OWH SE iL v RTI Ltd & Anor

The court refused to adjourn or set aside enforcement of the arbitration award. Even if RTI succeeded before the Privy Council on the retrospectivity of Article 46A, this would not justify refusal of enforcement in England, as the immunity is not a mandatory defence, no actual illegality is alleged, and the point was not raised in the arbitration. The BIT arbitration did not provide sufficient grounds for adjournment. The public interest in enforcement of arbitration awards outweighed the ancillary public policy interest in the sanctions immunity provision.

Parties
Claimant: OWH SE i. L. (in liquidation); Defendant: RTI LIMITED (in liquidation); Defendant: UNITED COMPANY RUSAL, IPJSC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Permission to Enforce Arbitration Award and Adjournment Application
Outcome
Set Aside Application dismissed; Adjournment Application refused; costs of withdrawn Alternative Service Order application to be determined.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Public Policy Exception, Sanctions Compliance, Retrospectivity of Statutory Immunity, Henderson V Henderson Abuse of Process, BIT Arbitration Adjournment
Arbitration Commercial Law Sanctions Law Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Public Policy Exception Sanctions Compliance Retrospectivity of Statutory Immunity Henderson V Henderson Abuse of Process +1 more

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OWH SE i. L. (in liquidation)

Claimant

RTI LIMITED (in liquidation)

Defendant

UNITED COMPANY RUSAL, IPJSC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Permission to Enforce Arbitration Award and Adjournment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement of the LCIA arbitration award should be refused or adjourned on grounds of English public policy due to Jersey sanctions law and retrospective immunity under Article 46A of SAFL
  2. 2 Whether the Set Aside Application should be summarily dismissed or adjourned pending Privy Council or BIT arbitration outcomes
  3. 3 Whether the Henderson v Henderson principle bars raising English public policy at enforcement stage

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to adjourn or set aside enforcement of the arbitration award. Even if RTI succeeded before the Privy Council on the retrospectivity of Article 46A, this would not justify refusal of enforcement in England, as the immunity is not a mandatory defence, no actual illegality is alleged, and the point was not raised in the arbitration. The BIT arbitration did not provide sufficient grounds for adjournment. The public interest in enforcement of arbitration awards outweighed the ancillary public policy interest in the sanctions immunity provision.

Court Disposition

Set Aside Application dismissed; Adjournment Application refused; costs of withdrawn Alternative Service Order application to be determined.

Orders

  • Set Aside Application dismissed
  • Adjournment Application refused