- UKSC: appeal allowed against order making resisting enforcement conditional on payment of security (IPCO v NNPC)
- Original news
- What are the key implications of this judgment?
- What was the background to the appeal?
- What did the Supreme Court decide?
- Was the Court of Appeal's order justified by AA 1996, s 103(5)?
- Was the Court of Appeal's order justified by English procedural rules, including CPR 3.1(3)?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed an appeal against an order by the Court of Appeal that, following its decision that enforcement proceedings begun by the respondent on appeal (IPCO) should be remitted to the Commercial Court for it to determine whether a New York Convention award should be enforced in light of alleged fraud pursuant to section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), any further enforcement of the award by ‘adjourned’ under AA 1996, s 103(5), such order being conditional on the payment of additional security by the appellant (Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation or NNPC). The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal’s order for the payment of security was not within the scope of any jurisdiction or power conferred on the court by the AA 1996.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial