INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 1/3LY
MARKET COMMENTARY 33
YUKOS C AP I TAL SÀRL V OJ SC OIL COMPANY ROSNEF T: THE S IGNIF I C ANCE
In a case arising from the collapse of Yukos that has escaped attention amid the clamour over the Permanent Court of Arbitration awards, the English High Court has confirmed that arbitration awards annulled by a Russian supervisory court may still be given effect under English law. The long-running Yukos disputes have been grabbing headlines following the handing down of a series of arbitration awards in favour of Yukosmajority shareholders last month. At over USD 50 billion, the awards are the largest ever made by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. In a further award, shareholders were awarded EUR 1.9 billion by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The size of these awards against Russia and their impact on international commercial relations has understandably drawn attention. But a further decision in other proceedings relating to the collapse of the Yukos oil company (handed down slightly earlier)may have greater significance for arbitration practitioners. PRELIMINARY ISSUES The judgment in Yukos Capital SàRL. v OJSC Oil Company Rosneft is the latest in a series of decisions in a dispute arising from the acquisition by the defendant, Russian oil company Rosneft, of assets formerly owned by Yukos. The judgment is likely to be of importance in arbitrations where a foreign supervisory court overturns a tribunal’s award on unjust grounds. The decisionwasmade by the English High Court and concerned preliminary issues in a broader claim for post-award interest. Mr Justice Simon held that the annulment by theMoscow Arbitrazh Court (the relevant supervisory court in Russia) of underlying arbitral awards onwhich the English claim for interest was basedwould not prevent the High Court giving effect to the annulled awards if it were proven that the annulment offended against basic principles of honesty, natural justice and English public policy. As such, interest on the sums claimedmay be recoverable under section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
BY GEORGE MINGAY AND RUPERT GORDON, LEGAL DIRECTOR AND A SSOCIATE AT CLYDE & CO
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs