GENERAL DYNAMICS UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED v THE STATE OF LIBYA

GENERAL DYNAMICS UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED v THE STATE OF LIBYA

The failure by General Dynamics to refer expressly to Libya's state immunity under s. 1 SIA was not material because the s. 9 exception clearly applied due to the arbitration agreement and Libya's participation in the arbitration. There was no arguable defence based on state immunity to the enforcement of the award. Any issues regarding enforcement immunity would arise only at the execution stage. The alleged non-disclosure regarding the existence of two governments in Libya was immaterial to the substantive relief and only relevant to service, which had already been set aside. The application to set aside the enforcement order was therefore refused, except as to costs.

Parties
Claimant: General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited; Defendant: The State of Libya
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order
Outcome
Application to set aside the enforcement order refused except as to costs; costs order set aside.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, State Immunity Act, Ex Parte Applications, Full and Frank Disclosure, Service of Process on States
Arbitration State Immunity Civil Procedure Enforcement of Arbitral Awards State Immunity Act Ex Parte Applications Full and Frank Disclosure Service of Process on States

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

Parties

General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited

Claimant

The State of Libya

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure in its ex parte application for enforcement of an arbitral award against a state
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure of Libya's state immunity and the existence of only one recognised government in Libya justified setting aside the enforcement order

Ratio Decidendi

The failure by General Dynamics to refer expressly to Libya's state immunity under s. 1 SIA was not material because the s. 9 exception clearly applied due to the arbitration agreement and Libya's participation in the arbitration. There was no arguable defence based on state immunity to the enforcement of the award. Any issues regarding enforcement immunity would arise only at the execution stage. The alleged non-disclosure regarding the existence of two governments in Libya was immaterial to the substantive relief and only relevant to service, which had already been set aside. The application to set aside the enforcement order was therefore refused, except as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the enforcement order refused except as to costs; costs order set aside.

Orders

  • Teare J Order set aside insofar as it relates to costs
  • Application to set aside the remainder of the Teare J Order refused