United Kingdom / 22 March 2007 / England and Wales, High Court / Gater Assets Ltd v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy / 2006 Folio No. 460
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Court | England and Wales, High Court |
| Date | 22 March 2007 |
| Parties | Gater Assets Ltd v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy |
| Case number | 2006 Folio No. 460 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | III | IV | V |
| Source |
[2007] EWHC 697 (Comm) | online: BAILII |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The claimant, Gater Assets Limited (“Gater”), was the assignee of an arbitration award made by the International Commercial Court in Moscow against the defendant Ukrainian company, Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy (“Naftogaz”). It sought enforcement of the award in England under section 101 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the Act”). Naftogaz resisted enforcement and sought security for costs. The High Court made the order for security. In so ruling, it rejected an argument that it had no jurisdiction to order security against an award creditor in respect of a “Convention award” (being defined under the Act as “an award made in pursuance of an arbitration agreement in the territory of a state, other than the United Kingdom, which is a party to the [NYC]”). It reasoned that the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) regime for security for costs applied to claims made under both section 66 of the Act to enforce domestic awards and section 101 of the Act to enforce Convention awards. It followed that there was no breach of Article III NYC, which required simply that any “conditions”, in the sense of rules and provisions, imposed vis-à-vis enforcement of a Convention award not be more onerous than those imposed vis-à-vis enforcement of a domestic award. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
