PAO Tatneft v Ukraine [2018] EWHC 1797 (Comm) (13 July 2018)

PAO Tatneft v Ukraine [2018] EWHC 1797 (Comm) (13 July 2018)

Ukraine is not entitled to state immunity in these proceedings because the disputes fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the BIT, as properly construed. The FET claim is not a jurisdictional bar, and Tatneft's acquisition of Amruz and Seagroup shares constitutes a qualifying investment under the BIT. Ukraine is not precluded from raising new jurisdictional objections, but those objections fail on the merits. The order granting Tatneft leave to enforce the arbitral award stands.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1797 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PAO Tatneft; Defendant: Ukraine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Enforcement of Arbitral Award / High Court (commercial Court) Judgment on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Enforcement Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; enforcement order upheld.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, State Immunity Act 1978, Arbitration Act 1996, Bilateral Investment Treaties, Jurisdictional Objections, Most Favoured Nation Clause, Fair and Equitable Treatment, Interpretation of Treaties
Arbitration State Immunity International Investment Law Enforcement of Arbitral Awards State Immunity Act 1978 Arbitration Act 1996 Bilateral Investment Treaties Jurisdictional Objections +3 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PAO Tatneft

Claimant

Ukraine

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Enforcement of Arbitral Award / High Court (commercial Court) Judgment on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Enforcement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ukraine is entitled to state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 in respect of enforcement proceedings for an arbitral award under a BIT
  2. 2 Whether the BIT arbitration clause covers the disputes in question, including claims for breach of fair and equitable treatment and claims relating to shares acquired after the dispute arose
  3. 3 Whether Ukraine is precluded from raising new jurisdictional objections not raised before the arbitral tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

Ukraine is not entitled to state immunity in these proceedings because the disputes fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the BIT, as properly construed. The FET claim is not a jurisdictional bar, and Tatneft's acquisition of Amruz and Seagroup shares constitutes a qualifying investment under the BIT. Ukraine is not precluded from raising new jurisdictional objections, but those objections fail on the merits. The order granting Tatneft leave to enforce the arbitral award stands.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; enforcement order upheld.

Orders

  • Ukraine's application to set aside the enforcement order is dismissed.
  • Tatneft's leave to enforce the arbitral award and judgment for US$112 million plus interest stands.