Konkola Copper Mines Plc v U&M Mining Zambia Ltd [2014] EWHC 2146 (Comm) (02 July 2014)

Konkola Copper Mines Plc v U&M Mining Zambia Ltd [2014] EWHC 2146 (Comm) (02 July 2014)

Security for costs was ordered because there is a real risk that KCM's assets will not be readily available to satisfy any costs order, given its financial position, lack of assets in the jurisdiction, and conduct in resisting enforcement. Security for sums due under the Second Award was refused because the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2146 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Konkola Copper Mines PLC; Defendant: U&M Mining Zambia Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Arbitration Related Application / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and Security for Sums Due Under Arbitration Award
Outcome
Security for costs granted in the sum of £300,000; application for security for sums due under the Second Award refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Security for Sums Due Under Award, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Jurisdictional Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S67, Serious Irregularity Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S68
Arbitration Commercial Law Security for Costs Security for Sums Due Under Award Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Jurisdictional Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S67 Serious Irregularity Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 S68

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Konkola Copper Mines PLC

Claimant

U&M Mining Zambia Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Arbitration Related Application / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and Security for Sums Due Under Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against KCM under s70(6) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether security for sums due under the Second Award should be ordered under s70(7) Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether KCM's financial position justifies security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because there is a real risk that KCM's assets will not be readily available to satisfy any costs order, given its financial position, lack of assets in the jurisdiction, and conduct in resisting enforcement. Security for sums due under the Second Award was refused because the requirements of s70(7) were not met: the sums were not finally adjudged as payable and there was insufficient evidence that the challenge prejudiced U&M's ability to enforce the award.

Court Disposition

Security for costs granted in the sum of £300,000; application for security for sums due under the Second Award refused.

Orders

  • KCM to provide security for costs in the sum of £300,000, with liberty to apply.
  • No order for security under s70(7) Arbitration Act 1996 for sums due under the Second Award.