Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors Rev 1

Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors Rev 1

There was no evidence that Vivendi or its lawyers deliberately concealed the Gibert Memorandum or acted with intent to suppress relevant documents. The discovery exercise was not perverse or fraudulent. Even if the Memorandum had been produced, it would not have affected the tribunal's findings or caused substantial...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Elektrim S.A.; Defendant: Vivendi Universal S.A.; Defendant: Vivendi Telecom International S.A.; Defendant: Elektrim Telekomunikacja Sp. z.o.o.; Defendant: Carcom Warszawa Sp. z.o.o.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Arbitral Award, Extend Time, and Declare Repudiation
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Challenge to Arbitral Award, Fraud in Arbitration, Public Policy, Repudiation of Arbitration Agreement, Extension of Time, Disclosure Obligations
Arbitration Commercial Law Challenge to Arbitral Award Fraud in Arbitration Public Policy Repudiation of Arbitration Agreement Extension of Time Disclosure Obligations

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elektrim S.A.

Claimant

Vivendi Universal S.A.

Defendant

Vivendi Telecom International S.A.

Defendant

Elektrim Telekomunikacja Sp. z.o.o.

Defendant

Carcom Warszawa Sp. z.o.o.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Arbitral Award, Extend Time, and Declare Repudiation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Partial Award was obtained by fraud or procured contrary to public policy under section 68(2)(g) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether time for challenge should be extended under section 80(5) Arbitration Act 1996 and CPR 62.9
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration agreement was repudiated or renounced by Vivendi

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that Vivendi or its lawyers deliberately concealed the Gibert Memorandum or acted with intent to suppress relevant documents. The discovery exercise was not perverse or fraudulent. Even if the Memorandum had been produced, it would not have affected the tribunal's findings or caused substantial injustice. Section 40 Arbitration Act 1996 imposes statutory duties, not implied contractual terms, and breach does not constitute repudiation of the arbitration agreement.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside Partial Award under section 68(2)(g) dismissed
  • Application to extend time for challenge granted, but substantive challenge dismissed