Orascom Tmt Investments SARL v Veon Ltd

Orascom Tmt Investments SARL v Veon Ltd

The court held that the question of the lawfulness of the settlement under Italian law and whether the Italian tax authorities had abandoned the tax evasion theory was not an issue that fairness demanded the arbitrators deal with expressly or separately. The tribunal's findings addressed the substance of Orascom's arguments, and there was no serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d).

Parties
Claimant: Orascom TMT Investments S.À R. L. (formerly Weather Investments II S.à r.l.); Defendant: VEON LTD (formerly VimpelCom Ltd)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Serious Irregularity, Failure to Deal With Issues, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Serious Irregularity Failure to Deal With Issues Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orascom TMT Investments S.À R. L. (formerly Weather Investments II S.à r.l.)

Claimant

VEON LTD (formerly VimpelCom Ltd)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to deal with all issues put to it under section 68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the alleged failure amounted to a serious irregularity causing substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the question of the lawfulness of the settlement under Italian law and whether the Italian tax authorities had abandoned the tax evasion theory was not an issue that fairness demanded the arbitrators deal with expressly or separately. The tribunal's findings addressed the substance of Orascom's arguments, and there was no serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Section 68 challenge dismissed
  • Order made that the full arbitral award, as corrected, is enforceable