Honeywell International Middle East Ltd v Meydan Group Llc
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- Mr Justice Ramsey
Areas of Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Honeywell sought to enforce an arbitration award against Meydan which had been granted by the DIAC in March 2012. Meydan opposed the enforcement on the grounds of invalid service, incapacity to defend, alleged bribery, fraud, and the purported application of the wrong arbitration rules. The court held that Meydan's objections lacked merit and that the arbitration award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act 1996, emphasizing the strong public policy in favor of enforcing arbitral awards and dismissing allegations of bribery and fraud due to lack of substantiating evidence.
Judgment
Mr Justice Ramsey:
Introduction
In these proceedings the Claimant (“Honeywell”) brings an arbitration claim against the Defendant (“Meydan”) to enforce a Dubai arbitration award issued on 1 March 2012 (“the Award”) made by an arbitral tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in an arbitration (“the Arbitration”) under the rules of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”).
Under the Award Honeywell was awarded the sum of AED77,080,272.44, approximately £12.6 million against Meydan.
Honeywell commenced these proceedings on 12 November 2012. It made a without notice application under s.101(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”) and CPR 62.18 (1)(b) for leave to enforce the Award in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court to the same effect.
It supported the application with the first witness statement of Anthony Robin Marshall, a partner of Hogan Lovells International LLP dated 8 November 2012 which exhibited the documents which are required to be produced under s.102 of the Act.
By an order made on 12 November 2012 and sealed on 22 November 2012 (“the Order”) Mr Justice Akenhead gave leave to enforce the Award in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court to the same effect but he ordered that the Order should not be enforced for 21 days after service of the relevant documents on Meydan or, if Meydan applied within those 21 days to set aside the Order, until after such application had been finally disposed of. The Order gave directions as to service of the documents.
On 11 September 2013 Honeywell made a further without notice application in relation to service of the proceedings out of the jurisdiction supported by the second witness statement of Mr. Marshall, dated 11 September 2013.
On 16 September 2013 Mr Justice Stuart-Smith made an order pursuant to CPR6.15 (1) and 6.27 giving permission to serve the relevant documents on Meydan and their Solicitors.
On 14 October 2013 Meydan acknowledged service of the arbitration claim and indicated that it intended to dispute the court’s jurisdiction.
Following correspondence between solicitors the parties agreed an extension of time for the service of Meydan’s application to set aside the Order and within that extended period, on 29 October 2013, Meydan issued an application seeking a date for a case management conference to consider directions and to hear an application for security for costs and also seeking an order setting aside the Order.
By an order made on 19 Decembe