Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy 17 October 2007 Buxton, Rix, and Moses LJJ Court of Appeal [2007] EWCA 988 [2007] ArbLR 28 Arbitration award--Enforcement--Security for costs--New York Convention award--Whether court has jurisdiction to order security (no)--Whether party resisting enforcement a `defendant' entitled to security for costs (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, ss 70(6) and 101 Security for costs against party seeking to enforce New York Convention award breach of Convention obligations Gazprom and the legal predecessor to Naftogaz concluded a transit agreement that contained an arbitration clause. Under this agreement, Gazprom had the right to send gas through the Brotherhood pipeline in the Ukraine in exchange for allowing Naftogaz's legal predecessor to take a specified quantity of the transiting gas. Gazprom insured the gas against misappropriation through Sogaz, which reinsured the risk with Monde Re. Gazprom's rights passed to Monde Re by way of subrogation. Monde Re commenced ICAC arbitration against Naftogaz alleging that the legal predecessor of Naftogaz took more gas than it was entitled to resulting in a payment by Sogaz to Gazprom of US$88,256,704.49 that Monde Re, in turn, paid to Sogaz under the terms of the reinsurance. The arbitral tribunal found that the agreement was binding between Monde Re and Naftogaz http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2007 (1) – Jan 1, 2007

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2007 (1) – Jan 1, 2007

Abstract

17 October 2007 Buxton, Rix, and Moses LJJ Court of Appeal [2007] EWCA 988 [2007] ArbLR 28 Arbitration award--Enforcement--Security for costs--New York Convention award--Whether court has jurisdiction to order security (no)--Whether party resisting enforcement a `defendant' entitled to security for costs (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, ss 70(6) and 101 Security for costs against party seeking to enforce New York Convention award breach of Convention obligations Gazprom and the legal predecessor to Naftogaz concluded a transit agreement that contained an arbitration clause. Under this agreement, Gazprom had the right to send gas through the Brotherhood pipeline in the Ukraine in exchange for allowing Naftogaz's legal predecessor to take a specified quantity of the transiting gas. Gazprom insured the gas against misappropriation through Sogaz, which reinsured the risk with Monde Re. Gazprom's rights passed to Monde Re by way of subrogation. Monde Re commenced ICAC arbitration against Naftogaz alleging that the legal predecessor of Naftogaz took more gas than it was entitled to resulting in a payment by Sogaz to Gazprom of US$88,256,704.49 that Monde Re, in turn, paid to Sogaz under the terms of the reinsurance. The arbitral tribunal found that the agreement was binding between Monde Re and Naftogaz

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/gater-assets-ltd-v-nak-naftogaz-ukrainiy-Ehez2NEmlv
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2012
Subject
Judgements
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2007.1.343
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

17 October 2007 Buxton, Rix, and Moses LJJ Court of Appeal [2007] EWCA 988 [2007] ArbLR 28 Arbitration award--Enforcement--Security for costs--New York Convention award--Whether court has jurisdiction to order security (no)--Whether party resisting enforcement a `defendant' entitled to security for costs (no)--Arbitration Act 1996, ss 70(6) and 101 Security for costs against party seeking to enforce New York Convention award breach of Convention obligations Gazprom and the legal predecessor to Naftogaz concluded a transit agreement that contained an arbitration clause. Under this agreement, Gazprom had the right to send gas through the Brotherhood pipeline in the Ukraine in exchange for allowing Naftogaz's legal predecessor to take a specified quantity of the transiting gas. Gazprom insured the gas against misappropriation through Sogaz, which reinsured the risk with Monde Re. Gazprom's rights passed to Monde Re by way of subrogation. Monde Re commenced ICAC arbitration against Naftogaz alleging that the legal predecessor of Naftogaz took more gas than it was entitled to resulting in a payment by Sogaz to Gazprom of US$88,256,704.49 that Monde Re, in turn, paid to Sogaz under the terms of the reinsurance. The arbitral tribunal found that the agreement was binding between Monde Re and Naftogaz

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.