OWH SE iL v RTI Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 1015 (Comm) (01 May 2026)

OWH SE iL v RTI Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 1015 (Comm) (01 May 2026)

The court held that even if RTI/Rusal had a reasonable prospect of succeeding before the Privy Council on the Article 46A defence, there was no basis for refusing enforcement of the award under English public policy. The statutory immunity under Jersey law did not apply retrospectively to the relevant conduct, and there was no equivalent English public policy requiring refusal of enforcement. The public policy defence could have been raised in the arbitration but was not, and there was no abuse of process in raising it now, but the facts did not justify refusal or adjournment. The application to set aside and to adjourn was dismissed.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1015 (Comm)
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 Court Enforcement of Arbitration Award / Post Award Enforcement; Applications to Set Aside and Adjourn Enforcement Order
Outcome
Applications to set aside and to adjourn enforcement order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Public Policy Exception, Sanctions Compliance, Retrospective Effect of Statutory Immunity, Henderson V Henderson Abuse of Process, Illegality Defence, Cross Jurisdictional Enforcement
Arbitration Sanctions Law Commercial Law Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Public Policy Exception Sanctions Compliance Retrospective Effect of Statutory Immunity Henderson V Henderson Abuse of Process +2 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 Court Enforcement of Arbitration Award / Post Award Enforcement; Applications to Set Aside and Adjourn Enforcement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement of the LCIA arbitration award should be set aside on grounds of public policy due to sanctions-related statutory immunity under Jersey law (Article 46A SAFL) and/or English law (section 44 SAMLA)
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside should be adjourned pending outcome of related proceedings in Jersey and before the Privy Council
  3. 3 Whether the defence based on public policy could and should have been raised in the arbitration (Henderson v Henderson abuse)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that even if RTI/Rusal had a reasonable prospect of succeeding before the Privy Council on the Article 46A defence, there was no basis for refusing enforcement of the award under English public policy. The statutory immunity under Jersey law did not apply retrospectively to the relevant conduct, and there was no equivalent English public policy requiring refusal of enforcement. The public policy defence could have been raised in the arbitration but was not, and there was no abuse of process in raising it now, but the facts did not justify refusal or adjournment. The application to set aside and to adjourn was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside and to adjourn enforcement order dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to enforce the LCIA arbitration award against Rusal is confirmed.
  • Application to adjourn enforcement pending Privy Council appeal is refused.