Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd [2017] EWHC 797 (Comm) (11 April 2017)

Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd [2017] EWHC 797 (Comm) (11 April 2017)

It is contrary to principle and the Supreme Court's decision in IPCO v NNPC to impose security as a condition for pursuing a challenge to enforcement of a New York Convention award under s.103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 where the adjournment was not sought by the party resisting enforcement. The proper course is to terminate the adjournment, discharge the order for security, and give directions for determination of the set aside application.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 797 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Eastern European Engineering Ltd; Defendant: Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Enforcement and Security
Outcome
Claimant's applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Security for Award, Adjournment of Enforcement Proceedings, New York Convention, Arbitration Act 1996 S.101 and S.103, Unless Orders, Procedural Sanctions
Arbitration Commercial Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Security for Award Adjournment of Enforcement Proceedings New York Convention Arbitration Act 1996 S.101 and S.103 +2 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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eastern European Engineering Ltd

Claimant

Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Enforcement and Security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's application to set aside enforcement of an arbitral award should be dismissed or made subject to an 'unless' order for failure to provide security as previously ordered
  2. 2 Whether the court can impose security as a condition for pursuing a challenge to enforcement under s.103 of the Arbitration Act 1996, where the adjournment was not sought by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

It is contrary to principle and the Supreme Court's decision in IPCO v NNPC to impose security as a condition for pursuing a challenge to enforcement of a New York Convention award under s.103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 where the adjournment was not sought by the party resisting enforcement. The proper course is to terminate the adjournment, discharge the order for security, and give directions for determination of the set aside application.

Court Disposition

Claimant's applications dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's applications for dismissal of the defendant's set aside application and for an 'unless' order are dismissed
  • Adjournment of the defendant's set aside application is terminated