非法损害裁决的可执行性与公平听证:从尼日利亚法律视角审视PID诉FRN案

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Bankole Sodipo
{"title":"非法损害裁决的可执行性与公平听证:从尼日利亚法律视角审视PID诉FRN案","authors":"Bankole Sodipo","doi":"10.54648/joia2021005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews, from a Nigerian law perspective, the judgment of the English court and the majority arbitral award in Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. (PID) v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN). The arbitral tribunal awarded record-breaking damages, totalling over USD 9 billion, inclusive of interest. The award relates to an alleged breach by the FRN of a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement (GSPA) to a facility that was never constructed by PID. The signatory of the GSPA, PID, was a British Virgin Island corporation. Although PID had incorporated a local PID Corporation in Nigeria (PIDNigeria), it never executed the GSPA. This article is divided into three sections. Section 1 features the introduction and a general commentary. Section 2 focuses on the second leg of the FRN’s objection: ‘Whether or not the Claimant failed to comply with the provisions of section 54 of the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 1990 as alleged, and if so whether the GSPA is void, and/or affected by illegality, as a result’. This article does not discuss the first leg of the FRN’s objection, namely, the capacity of theMinistry of Petroleum Resources to contract on behalf of the FRN. Section 3 examines the consequences of the order issued by the Federal High Court of Nigeria (FHC) on FRN’s application, restraining the parties from proceeding with the arbitral hearing, which the tribunal ignored. It considers whether the order can bind members of the tribunal who were not parties to the FHCaction; if it was proper for the tribunal to ignore the order; and the consequences of the order on the FRN. It analyses whether the principle of fair hearing was breached when the tribunal reached a determination on the issue of the seat of arbitration without taking further submissions from the parties.\nFair Hearing, Arbitral Award, Tribunal, Arbitration, Expert Opinion, Foreign Companies, Illegality, Employment, Jurisdiction, Enforcement","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enforceability of Awards Vitiated by Illegality and Fair Hearing: A Review from a Nigerian Law Perspective of PID v. FRN\",\"authors\":\"Bankole Sodipo\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/joia2021005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article reviews, from a Nigerian law perspective, the judgment of the English court and the majority arbitral award in Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. (PID) v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN). The arbitral tribunal awarded record-breaking damages, totalling over USD 9 billion, inclusive of interest. The award relates to an alleged breach by the FRN of a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement (GSPA) to a facility that was never constructed by PID. The signatory of the GSPA, PID, was a British Virgin Island corporation. Although PID had incorporated a local PID Corporation in Nigeria (PIDNigeria), it never executed the GSPA. This article is divided into three sections. Section 1 features the introduction and a general commentary. Section 2 focuses on the second leg of the FRN’s objection: ‘Whether or not the Claimant failed to comply with the provisions of section 54 of the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 1990 as alleged, and if so whether the GSPA is void, and/or affected by illegality, as a result’. This article does not discuss the first leg of the FRN’s objection, namely, the capacity of theMinistry of Petroleum Resources to contract on behalf of the FRN. Section 3 examines the consequences of the order issued by the Federal High Court of Nigeria (FHC) on FRN’s application, restraining the parties from proceeding with the arbitral hearing, which the tribunal ignored. It considers whether the order can bind members of the tribunal who were not parties to the FHCaction; if it was proper for the tribunal to ignore the order; and the consequences of the order on the FRN. It analyses whether the principle of fair hearing was breached when the tribunal reached a determination on the issue of the seat of arbitration without taking further submissions from the parties.\\nFair Hearing, Arbitral Award, Tribunal, Arbitration, Expert Opinion, Foreign Companies, Illegality, Employment, Jurisdiction, Enforcement\",\"PeriodicalId\":43527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Arbitration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Arbitration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2021005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2021005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从尼日利亚法律的角度回顾了英国法院对Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. (PID)诉尼日利亚联邦共和国(FRN)案的判决和多数仲裁裁决。仲裁庭裁定了破纪录的赔偿金,包括利息在内,总计超过90亿美元。该裁决与FRN涉嫌违反天然气供应和处理协议(GSPA)有关,该设施从未由PID建造。GSPA的签署国PID是一家英属维尔京群岛公司。尽管PID在尼日利亚成立了一家当地PID公司(PIDNigeria),但它从未执行过GSPA。本文分为三个部分。第1节的特点是引言和一般性评论。第2节侧重于FRN反对意见的第二部分:“索赔人是否如所指控的那样未能遵守《1990年公司和联合事务法》(CAMA)第54条的规定,如果是这样,那么GSPA是否无效,和/或因此受到非法行为的影响”。本文不讨论FRN反对的第一阶段,即石油资源部代表FRN签订合同的能力。第3节审查尼日利亚联邦高等法院(FHC)对FRN的申请发出的命令的后果,该命令限制各方进行仲裁聆讯,法庭对此不予理睬。它考虑该命令是否可以约束非fhaction当事方的仲裁庭成员;如果法庭无视该命令是适当的;以及该命令对FRN的影响。它分析了当仲裁庭在没有听取当事各方进一步意见的情况下就仲裁地问题作出决定时,是否违反了公平听证原则。公平听证,仲裁裁决,仲裁庭,仲裁,专家意见,外国公司,非法,就业,管辖权,执行
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Enforceability of Awards Vitiated by Illegality and Fair Hearing: A Review from a Nigerian Law Perspective of PID v. FRN
This article reviews, from a Nigerian law perspective, the judgment of the English court and the majority arbitral award in Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. (PID) v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN). The arbitral tribunal awarded record-breaking damages, totalling over USD 9 billion, inclusive of interest. The award relates to an alleged breach by the FRN of a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement (GSPA) to a facility that was never constructed by PID. The signatory of the GSPA, PID, was a British Virgin Island corporation. Although PID had incorporated a local PID Corporation in Nigeria (PIDNigeria), it never executed the GSPA. This article is divided into three sections. Section 1 features the introduction and a general commentary. Section 2 focuses on the second leg of the FRN’s objection: ‘Whether or not the Claimant failed to comply with the provisions of section 54 of the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 1990 as alleged, and if so whether the GSPA is void, and/or affected by illegality, as a result’. This article does not discuss the first leg of the FRN’s objection, namely, the capacity of theMinistry of Petroleum Resources to contract on behalf of the FRN. Section 3 examines the consequences of the order issued by the Federal High Court of Nigeria (FHC) on FRN’s application, restraining the parties from proceeding with the arbitral hearing, which the tribunal ignored. It considers whether the order can bind members of the tribunal who were not parties to the FHCaction; if it was proper for the tribunal to ignore the order; and the consequences of the order on the FRN. It analyses whether the principle of fair hearing was breached when the tribunal reached a determination on the issue of the seat of arbitration without taking further submissions from the parties. Fair Hearing, Arbitral Award, Tribunal, Arbitration, Expert Opinion, Foreign Companies, Illegality, Employment, Jurisdiction, Enforcement
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信