Latest News
Unraveling Fraud: A Rare Challenge to Arbitral Awards Sheds Light on the Imperfections in the System
Unraveling Fraud: A Rare Challenge to Arbitral Awards Sheds Light on the Imperfections in the System
Introduction:
The English Courts are known for their reluctance to interfere in arbitral proceedings, emphasizing the need to uphold the integrity of awards arising from such processes. However, a recent case, The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Limited, has challenged this norm, showcasing a successful and rare instance where an arbitral award was challenged. This article delves into the intricacies of the case, shedding light on the allegations of fraud and breaches of public policy that led to the unraveling of the arbitral process.
Background:
The case revolves around a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement for Accelerated Gas Development (GSPA) signed in 2010 between the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) and Process & Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID). P&ID initiated arbitration in London after FRN allegedly breached the contract. The challenge to the arbitral awards emerged from allegations of bribery, corruption, and fraudulent practices by P&ID throughout the arbitration process.
Allegations of Fraud:
- False Witness Evidence:
P&ID relied on witness evidence that it knew to be false, presenting a skewed version of how the GSPA was formed. The court found that P&ID's conduct in providing false evidence was dishonest, compromising the integrity of the arbitral process.
- Corrupt Payments:
P&ID was accused of making corrupt payments to a government employee to suppress the truth about bribery during the contract's inception. These payments were intended to buy silence and manipulate the Tribunal's perception of the case.
- Improper Use of Privileged Documents:
P&ID improperly retained and utilized FRN's privileged documents, gaining an unfair advantage in the arbitration. The court concluded that such practices went against the principles of fairness and constituted a serious irregularity.
Substantial Injustice and the Section 68 Challenge:
The challenge was made under Section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996, asserting that the awards were obtained by fraud and contrary to public policy. The court, led by Mr. Justice Knowles, determined that the arbitral process had deviated significantly from what could reasonably be expected. It was deemed a "shell that got nowhere near the truth," leading to substantial injustice for FRN.
Loss of Right to Object:
Section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996 was invoked to assess whether FRN had lost the right to bring its challenge. The court clarified that the circumstances giving rise to the objection were unknown to FRN until after the arbitration's conclusion. This ruling highlighted the importance of reasonable diligence in determining the right to object in arbitration proceedings.
Key takeaways and reflections:
- Imbalance and Bribery:
The case highlighted the potential for imbalances in contributions between parties, leading to unfair contract terms. Mr. Justice Knowles emphasized the importance of professional standards and ethics, especially in cases involving unequal resources.
- Role of Disclosure:
The disclosure process enabled the court to uncover documents revealing the truth about the arbitral award. This emphasizes the role of transparency and scrutiny in maintaining the integrity of arbitration.
- Responsibility of Legal Representatives and Experts:
The judgment criticized legal representatives and experts for failing to meet expected standards, raising questions about the need for more direct intervention by tribunals when parties are inadequately represented.
- Public Scrutiny in Arbitration:
Unlike court proceedings, arbitration lacks the public press and scrutiny provided by the open court principle. The case prompted reflections on whether arbitrators should adopt a more interventionist approach in the absence of public accountability.
Conclusion:
The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Process & Industrial Developments Limited serves as a rare but impactful example of a successful challenge to arbitral awards. While the English courts generally uphold the sanctity of arbitration, this case underscores the importance of addressing severe abuses of the arbitral process. It calls for a nuanced approach to maintain the balance between non-interventionist principles and ensuring the fairness and integrity of arbitral proceedings.
- The case revolves around a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement for Accelerated Gas Development (GSPA) signed in 2010 between The Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) and Process & Industrial Developments
- The challenge was made under Section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996, asserting that the awards were obtained by fraud and contrary to public policy.
- Section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996 was invoked to assess whether FRN had lost the right to bring its challenge.
