The Republic of Kazakhstan v World Wide Minerals Ltd & Ors

The Republic of Kazakhstan v World Wide Minerals Ltd & Ors

The Tribunal failed to deal with the central Counterfactual Case advanced by Kazakhstan, which was an essential issue put to it. This failure constitutes a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and caused substantial injustice, as the outcome might well have been different had the issue been addressed.

Parties
Claimant: The Republic of Kazakhstan; Defendant: World Wide Minerals Ltd; Defendant: The estate of Paul A Carroll QC (deceased); Defendant: Catharine Carroll as executor of the estate of Paul A Carroll
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Section 68(2)(d) Application
Outcome
Challenge under section 68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996 upheld; Award set aside in relevant part.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Due Process, Causation, Loss, Fair and Equitable Treatment, UNCITRAL Rules, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration International Investment Law Serious Irregularity Due Process Causation Loss Fair and Equitable Treatment UNCITRAL Rules +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic of Kazakhstan

Claimant

World Wide Minerals Ltd

Defendant

The estate of Paul A Carroll QC (deceased)

Defendant

Catharine Carroll as executor of the estate of Paul A Carroll

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Section 68(2)(d) Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to deal with Kazakhstan’s Counterfactual Case on causation and loss
  2. 2 Whether such failure constitutes a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the irregularity caused substantial injustice to Kazakhstan

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal failed to deal with the central Counterfactual Case advanced by Kazakhstan, which was an essential issue put to it. This failure constitutes a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and caused substantial injustice, as the outcome might well have been different had the issue been addressed.

Court Disposition

Challenge under section 68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996 upheld; Award set aside in relevant part.