Лектор докладно проаналізувала разом з учасниками арбітражні угоди в фокусі Верховного Суду Великої Британії, а саме:

• 1.    Огляд ключових термінів.
• 2.    Право місця арбітражу проти права, яке застосовується до арбітражної угоди: яка система норм підлягає застосуванню в умовах контрактної невизначеності?
• 3.    Межі «проарбітражного» підходу в англійському праві на прикладі справи Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) and others [2023] UKSC 32.
• 4.    Питання форуму: до якого суду подається заява про отримання судової заборони на прикладі справи UniCredit Bank GmbH (Respondent) v RusChemAlliance LLC (Appellant) [2024] UKSC 30.

У рамках характеристики арбітражних угод в фокусі Верховного Суду Великої Британії акцентовано на наступному:

1.    Огляд ключових термінів:

• Proper place to bring the claim – належне місце для подачі позову;
• Dispute resolution – вирішення (врегулювання) спору;
• Dispute – спір;
• Disagreements – розбіжності, неузгодженості;
• To stay the proceedings – зупинити провадження;
• Impartial – неупереджений;
• Adjudication – ухвалення формального рішення щодо спору/проблеми;
• Seat of arbitration – місце арбітражу;
• Arbitral award – арбітражне рішення;
• Arbitration – арбітраж;
• Settlement – врегулювання;
• Binding – зобов’язуючий, обов’язковий до виконання;
• The court rejects this argument – суд відхиляє цей аргумент;
• Arbitrator – арбітр;
• To grant an anti-suit injunction – видати судову заборону на початок судового провадження;
• Arbitration agreement – арбітражна угода;
• Arbitration clause – арбітражне застереження;
• Substantive law/ governing law – матеріальне право/ застосовне право;
• To commence legal proceedings – розпочати судові процеси;
• To bring a legal action – подавати позов.

2.    Право місця арбітражу проти права, яке застосовується до арбітражної угоди: яка система норм підлягає застосуванню в умовах контрактної невизначеності?

• Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS (Respondent) v 000 Insurance Company Chubb (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 38 On appeal from: [2020] EWCA Civ 574

Key facts:

• Applicable law was not chosen, but was chosen the seat of arbitration (London);

• The High Court dismissed Enka’s (defendant’s) claim;

• The Court of Appeal overturned the judge’s decision.

LEGAL ENGLISH TERMINOLOGY

• An injunction

An injunction is a court order that requires the persons to whom it is addressed to do, or refrain from doing, a specified act.

• це судовий наказ, який вимагає від осіб, яким він адресований, виконати певну дію або утриматися від її вчинення.

Wolverhampton City Council and others (Respondents) v London

Gypsies and Travellers and others (Appellants) [2023] UKSC 47

• Anti-suit injunction is a transnational remedy for multi-jurisdictional litigation

An anti-suit injunction is an interlocutory remedy issued by a court in one jurisdiction which prohibits a litigant from initiating or continuing parallel litigation in another jurisdiction or jurisdictions.

• Заборона проти позову – це проміжний засіб правового захисту, виданий судом в одній юрисдикції, який забороняє учаснику судового процесу ініціювати або продовжувати паралельний судовий процес в іншій юрисдикції або юрисдикціях.

Why did the Court of Appeal overturned the judgment?

It held that, unless there has been an express choice of the law that is to govern the arbitration agreement, the general rule should be that the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the seat, as a matter of implied choice; that there was no express choice of law in this case and that the arbitration agreement was therefore governed by English law; and that it was appropriate to grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain Chubb russia from pursuing the russian claim.

English case law:

Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS (Respondent) v 000 Insurance Company Chubl (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 38 On appeal from: [2020] EWCA Civ 574

The central issue on this appeal is how the governing law of an arbitration agreement is to be determined when the law applicable to the contract containing it differs from the law of the “seat” of the arbitration, the place chosen for the arbitration in the arbitration agreement.

1. the seat is where the arbitration is to be performed (legally, if not physically)
2. [121]-[124];
3. this approach maintains consistency with international law and legislative policy [125]-[141];
4. this rule is likely to uphold the reasonable expectations of contracting parties who specify a location for the arbitration without choosing the law to govern the contract [142]-[143];
5. and (iv) this approach provides legal certainty, allowing parties to predict easily which law the court will apply in the absence of choice [144].

• where an English court must decide which system of law governs an arbitration agreement, it should apply the English common law rules for resolving conflicts of laws rather that the provisions of the Rome I regulation, as the latter excludes arbitration agreements from its scope;

• Where the parties have made no choice of law to govern the arbitration agreement, either spermile ay chen wiice ear trations agreement the steroso mete, in genera, use arbitration agreement will be most closely connected with the law of the seat of arbitration;

• the seat of the arbitration is London, therefore, the majority upholds the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that English law governs the arbitration agreement.

3.    Межі «проарбітражного» підходу в англійському праві на прикладі справи Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) and others [2023] UKSC 32

Republic of Mozambique (acting through its Attorney General) (Appellant) v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) and others (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 32

Key facts:

3 corporate vehicles (the “SPVs”) wholly owned by the Republic of Mozambique (“Mozambique”) entered into supply contracts (the “Contracts”) with three of the respondents (the “Privinvest companies”).

• Swiss law
• dispute resolution by arbitration

Key facts:

SPVs borrowed the purchase funds from various banks, for which borrowing Mozambique granted sovereign guarantees

• English law
• dispute resolution in the courts of England and Wales

Key facts:

Mozambique accuses the Privinvest companies and others of paying significant bribes to Mozambique’s officials, and exposing it to a potential liability of approximately US$2bn under the Guarantees.

• In 2019 Mozambique brought claims in England and Wales seeking damages resulting from its entering into the Guarantees. The respondents (“Privinvest”) say that the Contracts have essentially been performed.

Key facts:

While Mozambique is not a signatory to the Contracts, Privinvest contends that, as a matter of Swiss law, Mozambique is bound by the arbitration agreements within them.

On that basis, Privinvest sought a stay of all Mozambique’s claims pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”).

Key facts:

Section 9 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement (such as those in the Contracts) against whom legal proceedings are brought in respect of a “matter”, which under the agreement is to be referred to arbitration, may apply to the court to stay the proceedings so far as they concern that matter.

On such an application the court must grant a stay unless satisfied that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.

Arbitration Act 1996

Section 9 (1)

«A party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought (whether by way of claim or counterclaim) in respect of a matter which under the agreement is to be referred to arbitration may (upon notice to the other parties to the proceedings) apply to the court in which the proceedings have been brought to stay the proceedings so far as they concern that matter».

English case law:

Republic of Mozambique (acting through its Attorney General) (Appellant) v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) and others (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 32

«The Supreme Court notes that English law, like many other legal systems, adopts a pro-arbitration approach. It is in this context that section 9 of the 1996 Act must be interpreted».

«…there is also a general international consensus on the determination of “matters” which must be referred to arbitration among the leading arbitration jurisdictions in the common law world that are signatories of the New York

Convention…».

1/ The substance of the dispute

• whether the transactions, contracts and guarantees, were obtained through bribery, and whether Privinvest had knowledge at the relevant time of the alleged illegality of the transactions.

2/ The scope of the arbitration agreements

• in ascertaining the scope of an arbitration agreement, must have regard to what rational businesspeople would contemplate;

• rational businesspeople are likely to intend that any disputes arising out of their contractual relationship be decided by the same tribunal;

• Therefore, there was no question of the arbitration clauses extending to cover Mozambique’s allegations on which it relies to establish Privinvest’s legal liability.

4.    Питання форуму: до якого суду подається заява про отримання судової заборони на прикладі справи UniCredit Bank GmbH (Respondent) v RusChemAlliance LLC (Appellant) [2024] UKSC 30

English case law:

UniCredit Bank GmbH (Respondent) v RusChemAlliance LLC (Appellant)

[2024] UKSC 30

“In 2021 the appellant, RusChemAlliance LLC (“RusChem’), a russian company, concluded contracts with two German companies to construct gas processing plants in russia, under which RusChem made advance payments of around €2 billion. The obligations of the German construction companies were guaranteed by bonds payable on demand, some of which were issued by the respondent, UnCredit Bank GmbH (“UniCredit”). The bonds stated that they were governed by English law and that any dispute was to be referred to arbitration in Paris.

Following the russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Union imposed sanctions on russia. The German companies announced that, because of these sanctions, they could not perform the construction contracts. As a result, RusChem terminated the contracts and requested the return of the advance payments. The companies asserted that they were prohibited by the EU sanctions from repaying these sums. RusChem then demanded payment V from UnCredit under the bonds, which was refused for the same reason”.

“RusChem began proceedings against UniCredit in russia claiming payment under bonds. UniCredit applied to the russian court to dismiss RusChem’s claim on the ground that the parties had agreed to arbitrate disputes in Paris, but the application was refused. UniCredit then applied to the English court for an injunction to restrain RusChem from continuing the Russian proceedings. RusChem disputed the jurisdiction of the English court to hear this claim”/

Case law:

UniCredit Bank GmbH (Respondent) v RusChemAlliance LLC (Appellant) [2024]

UKSC 30

To establish that the English court has jurisdiction to hear its claim for an “anti-suit” injunction, UnCredit had to show:

• that its claim falls within one of the categories of case where it is permissible to sue a defendant located abroad and
• that England and Wales is the proper place in which to bring the claim.

Proper place issue:

UniCredit Bank GmbH (Respondent) v RusChemAlliance LLC (Appellant) [20241

UKSC 30

1. In any case, the French courts would not have jurisdiction over RusChem and, even if they did, have no power to grant anti-suit injunctions.

2. It is clear that an order made by an arbitrator would be wholly ineffectual to prevent RusChem from breaking its agreement to arbitrate.

3. In circumstances where UnCredit could not obtain any effective remedy in the French courts or from an arbitral tribunal, the Court of Appeal was right to conclude that England and Wales is the proper place in which to bring this claim.

Першоджерело - https://tinyurl.com/2f48ska3