Peepul Capital Fund II LLC and another (Respondents) v Vsoft Holdings LLC (Appellant) (Mauritius)

Peepul Capital Fund II LLC and another (Respondents) v Vsoft Holdings LLC (Appellant) (Mauritius)

VSoft, by counsel, objectively abandoned its defence to liability under the Shareholders Agreement except as to quantum; the arbitrator's intervention did not prevent VSoft from presenting its case; there was no breach of natural justice or public policy; the freezing injunction should continue but the anti-suit injunction should be discharged as it was neither necessary nor equitable.

Citation
[2019] UKPC 47
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Peepul Capital Fund II LLC; Appellant/respondent: Millenium Strategic Group Limited; Respondent/appellant: VSoft Holdings LLC
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal and Cross Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Natural Justice in Arbitration, Freezing Injunctions, Anti Suit Injunctions, Public Policy in Arbitration
Arbitration Contract Law Company Law Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Natural Justice in Arbitration Freezing Injunctions Anti Suit Injunctions Public Policy in Arbitration

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peepul Capital Fund II LLC

Appellant/respondent

Millenium Strategic Group Limited

Appellant/respondent

VSoft Holdings LLC

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal and Cross Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award should be set aside for breach of natural justice under section 39(2)(b)(iv) of the Mauritian International Arbitration Act 2008
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's intervention prevented VSoft from presenting its case
  3. 3 Whether the award conflicted with public policy under section 39(2)(b)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

VSoft, by counsel, objectively abandoned its defence to liability under the Shareholders Agreement except as to quantum; the arbitrator's intervention did not prevent VSoft from presenting its case; there was no breach of natural justice or public policy; the freezing injunction should continue but the anti-suit injunction should be discharged as it was neither necessary nor equitable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Application to set aside the arbitral award dismissed
  • Freezing injunction in favour of the Investors to continue pending enforcement of the award