Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd

Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd

It would be wrong in principle and contrary to Supreme Court authority to impose 'unless' terms or dismiss the defendant's set aside application for failure to provide security, where the adjournment was not sought by the defendant and security was ordered at the claimant's urging. The proper course is to terminate the adjournment, discharge the security order, and direct prosecution of the set aside application.

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 / Ruling on Applications to Enforce, for Security, and to Dismiss Set Aside Application
Outcome
Claimant's applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Security for Awards, Adjournment of Enforcement Proceedings, New York Convention, Arbitration Act 1996 S.101, S.103
Arbitration Commercial Law Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Security for Awards Adjournment of Enforcement Proceedings New York Convention Arbitration Act 1996 S.101, S.103

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eastern European Engineering Ltd

Claimant

Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Ruling on Applications to Enforce, for Security, and to Dismiss Set Aside Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's application to set aside enforcement should be summarily dismissed due to non-compliance with security order and failed French challenge
  2. 2 Whether an 'unless' order or penal notice should be imposed for failure to provide security
  3. 3 Whether security for the award can be ordered as a condition for pursuing a challenge under s.103 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

It would be wrong in principle and contrary to Supreme Court authority to impose 'unless' terms or dismiss the defendant's set aside application for failure to provide security, where the adjournment was not sought by the defendant and security was ordered at the claimant's urging. The proper course is to terminate the adjournment, discharge the security order, and direct prosecution of the set aside application.

Court Disposition

Claimant's applications dismissed

Orders

  • Adjournment of the defendant's set aside application terminated
  • Order for provision of security discharged