| ARBITRATION — Award — Enforcement — New York Convention arbitral award — Whether jurisdiction to order partial enforcement of award — Arbitration Act 1996, ss 101 to 103 — Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958 (1976) (Cmnd 6419), arts III, V, VI
IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corpn [2008] EWCA Civ 1157; [2008] WLR (D) 324
CA: Tuckey, Wall and Rimer LJJ: 21 October 2008
Part of a New York Convention arbitration award could be enforced pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1996.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in dismissing an appeal brought by the defendant, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (“NNPC”), against the decision of Tomlinson J [2008] Bus LR D105, when he gave judgment for the claimant, IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd, for over US $85m.
IPCO was a Nigerian subsidiary of a Hong Kong registered company. In March 1994 it entered into a turnkey contract with NNPC, the state oil company of Nigeria, to design and construct a petroleum export terminal. The progress of the project was delayed by 22 months because, IPCO contended, NNPC required substantial variations to the contract works. IPCO’s disputed claims to be paid substantially more than the contract price were referred to arbitration in Lagos in accordance with Nigerian law as the contract provided. On 28 October 2004 the arbitrators issued their award in favour of IPCO in the net amount of US $152,195,971.55. In November 2004 NNPC applied to the Federal Court in Nigeria to set aside the award and IPCO successfully applied to the English High Court to enforce it. However, Gross J adjourned enforcement provided NNPC paid IPCO US $13m. IPCO renewed its application to enforce the award before Tomlinson J who enforced part of the award for over US $85m. NNPC appealed.
TUCKEY LJ, having referred to ss 100 to 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and arts III, V and VI of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, said that the question whether part of a New York Convention arbitration award could be enforced was one of some importance upon which there was no English authority. His Lordship could see no objection in principle to enforcement of part of an award provided the part to be enforced could be ascertained from the face of the award and judgment could be given in the same terms as those in the award. The purpose behind the Convention was reflected in the language of the 1996 Act. The word “award” in the 1996 Act should be construed to mean the award or part of it. The judge was therefore entitled to order part enforcement of the award.
WALL and RIMER LJJ agreed.
|
