United Kingdom / 24 May 1999 / England and Wales, High Court / Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation SA v. Hilmarton Ltd / 1998 Folio No 1003
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Court | England and Wales, High Court |
| Date | 24 May 1999 |
| Parties | Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation SA v. Hilmarton Ltd |
| Case number | 1998 Folio No 1003 |
| Source |
[1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 146 |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Hilmarton Limited ("Hilmarton") contracted with Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation ("OTV") to procure a public contract for OTV in Algeria. The contract, which was governed by Swiss law, provided for arbitration in Switzerland under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. A payment-related dispute arose and Hilmarton initiated arbitration, which ultimately resulted in an award being made in its favour. The tribunal rejected OTV's request to dismiss Hilmarton's claim on the ground that it violated the law of the contract's place of performance (Algeria), which prohibited intermediaries in connection with public contracts. The tribunal found that although Algerian law had been breached, there was no evidence of bribery or corruption. Nor had Swiss law or public policy been violated. Hilmarton sought enforcement of the award in the United Kingdom. OTV resisted enforcement on the ground that the contract was unlawful in its place of performance. The High Court refused to set aside a prior order giving effect to the award. Specifically, it held that the award was not unenforceable for public policy reasons under section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) ("the Act") (which directly incorporates and whose wording is equivalent to Article V(2)(b) NYC). Absent a finding of fact of corrupt practices, which would give rise to separate public policy considerations, the Court reasoned that it is not contrary to English public policy for a tribunal to enforce a contract which does not offend domestic public policy per either the proper law of the contract or the curial law of the arbitration, even if English law might arrive at a different result. The Court also rejected challenges to enforcement under the following provisions of the Act: sections 103(2)(c) (on the ground that OTV was otherwise unable to present its case) and 103(2)(e) (on the ground that the procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties) (which provisions directly incorporate and whose wording is equivalent to Articles V(1)(b) and (V)(1)(d) NYC, respectively). |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
