Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd

Khawar Qureshi QC (instructed by Signature Litigation LLP) for the Claimant David Brynmor Thomas (instructed by Clyde & Co LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 7 April 2017 ____________________

i) the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction as conditions precedent under the arbitration agreement had not been satisfied;

iii) enforcement would be contrary to public policy because of interference with a material witness of fact, or with his evidence.

i) nothing in s.103 of the 1996 Act (or in the provisions of Article V of the New York Convention that underlie it) provides that an enforcing court may make the decision of an issue raised under s.103(2)/(3) conditional upon the provision of security for the award;

ii) the only circumstance in which the New York Convention allows for the party challenging the award to be required to provide security for sums awarded against it, is where the challenge in the enforcing court is adjourned pending a challenge in the courts of the seat of the arbitration (and s.103(5) of the 1996 Act is to be interpreted as limited accordingly);