R v V [2008] EWHC 1531 (Comm) (03 July 2008)

R v V [2008] EWHC 1531 (Comm) (03 July 2008)

The court held that the arbitral tribunal's findings that the agreement and its performance were not illegal under Libyan law and not contrary to English public policy were unimpeachable, and there was no basis to go behind those findings in the absence of new evidence or bad faith. The application to challenge or refuse enforcement of the award on public policy grounds was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1531 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: R; Defendant: V
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Challenge to Arbitral Award / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68(2)(g) and 81(1)(c) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Policy, Illegality of Contracts, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Influence Peddling, International Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Public Policy Illegality of Contracts Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Influence Peddling International Arbitration

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

Parties

R

Claimant

V

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Challenge to Arbitral Award / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68(2)(g) and 81(1)(c) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award is contrary to English public policy due to alleged corrupt practices/influence peddling
  2. 2 Whether enforcement of the award should be refused under section 81(1)(c) Arbitration Act 1996 on public policy grounds
  3. 3 Whether the court can go behind the arbitral tribunal's findings on illegality and public policy

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitral tribunal's findings that the agreement and its performance were not illegal under Libyan law and not contrary to English public policy were unimpeachable, and there was no basis to go behind those findings in the absence of new evidence or bad faith. The application to challenge or refuse enforcement of the award on public policy grounds was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • R's applications under sections 68(2)(g) and 81(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996 are dismissed.