News and developments
CYPRUS: English guidance on the applicable legal principles for setting aside an arbitral Award for fraud
In the English case Stockman Interhold S.A. -v- Arricano Real Estate PLC (2017) EWHC 2909, the Court summarized the applicable legal principles for setting aside an arbitral award for fraud, as follows:
The complainant, who seeks to the set aside an arbitral award for fraud, must demonstrate its case to a high standard of proof (see Elektrim -v- Vivendi (2007) EWHC 11 at paragraph 11).There must be a sufficient causative link, between the fraud, and the obtaining of the relevant arbitral award, which can be demonstrated in the following ways:
There must have been “reprehensible or unconscionable conduct” that contributed in a substantial way to the obtaining of the award (see Double K Oil & Products Ltd -v- Neste Oil OYJ (2010) EWHC 3380 at paragraph 33).The applicant must show that the evidence relied on to demonstrate the fraud, would have had an important influence on the result of the arbitration (see Thyssen Canada Ltd -v- Mariana Maritime SA (2005) EWHC 219 at paragraph 60).It must also be shown, that the fraudulent conduct has caused substantial injustice in the sense that the fraud had an important influence on the award, and/or the result of the award, might realistically have been, or might well have been different, if the true facts had been known (see Mass -v- Musion (2015) EWHC 1346). In the English case Stockman Interhold S.A. -v- Arricano Real Estate PLC (2017) EWHC 2909, the Court summarized the applicable legal principles for setting aside an arbitral award for fraud, as follows:
The complainant, who seeks to the set aside an arbitral award for fraud, must demonstrate its case to a high standard of proof (see Elektrim -v- Vivendi (2007) EWHC 11 at paragraph 11).There must be a sufficient causative link, between the fraud, and the obtaining of the relevant arbitral award, which can be demonstrated in the following ways:
There must have been “reprehensible or unconscionable conduct” that contributed in a substantial way to the obtaining of the award (see Double K Oil & Products Ltd -v- Neste Oil OYJ (2010) EWHC 3380 at paragraph 33).The applicant must show that the evidence relied on to demonstrate the fraud, would have had an important influence on the result of the arbitration (see Thyssen Canada Ltd -v- Mariana Maritime SA (2005) EWHC 219 at paragraph 60).It must also be shown, that the fraudulent conduct has caused substantial injustice in the sense that the fraud had an important influence on the award, and/or the result of the award, might realistically have been, or might well have been different, if the true facts had been known (see Mass -v- Musion (2015) EWHC 1346).