Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd [2018] EWHC 2713 (Comm) (11 October 2018)

Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd [2018] EWHC 2713 (Comm) (11 October 2018)

The application to set aside enforcement fails because the tribunal had jurisdiction under the contract as only one party needed to serve notice; VCL was not prevented from presenting its case and any procedural disadvantage was due to its own choices; and there was no credible evidence of witness interference by EEEL. The grounds for resisting enforcement are not made out under section 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2713 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Eastern European Engineering Ltd; Defendant: Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Application to Set Aside Enforcement Order Under Section 103 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application to set aside enforcement order dismissed; enforcement of the arbitral award permitted.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Public Policy Exception, Issue Estoppel
Arbitration Commercial Law Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Public Policy Exception Issue Estoppel

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eastern European Engineering Ltd

Claimant

Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Application to Set Aside Enforcement Order Under Section 103 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to alleged non-compliance with pre-arbitration procedures
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was unable to present its case due to procedural unfairness in the admission of expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy due to alleged witness interference

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside enforcement fails because the tribunal had jurisdiction under the contract as only one party needed to serve notice; VCL was not prevented from presenting its case and any procedural disadvantage was due to its own choices; and there was no credible evidence of witness interference by EEEL. The grounds for resisting enforcement are not made out under section 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside enforcement order dismissed; enforcement of the arbitral award permitted.

Orders

  • Enforcement order of 18 August 2015 stands.
  • Permission to enforce the arbitral award and enter judgment against VCL is confirmed.