English Courts Refuse Bribery-Based Application

If you have obtained a judgment or arbitral award outside England and Wales, you may wish to enforce it in England or Wales because your debtor is located or has assets here. If so, it is positive to know that English courts do not tread lightly regarding requests to set aside orders enforcing foreign arbitral awards.

This was recently demonstrated by the TCC in London, in the case of Honeywell International Middle East Limited v Meydan Group LLC 1 (formerly known as Medan LLC) where Mr Justice Ramsey made it clear that the English courts take a robust approach to challenges to the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards, even where allegations of bribery are involved.

Background

In September 2007 Meydan (a company incorporated in Dubai) entered a contract with a main contractor Arabtec-WCT JV under which Arabtec agreed to carry out certain works at the Meydan Racecourse. The employer's representative under the contract between Arabtec and Meydan was Teo A Khing Design Consultants SDN Bhd (Dubai Branch) ("TAK") who were engineering consultants.

In March 2008 TAK, on behalf of Meydan, invited Honeywell to submit a tender for the supply and installation of an Extra-Low Voltage System at the Racecourse. In order to secure its nomination as a subcontractor, the invitation to tender included provisions requiring Honeywell to pay TAK AED 526,000.00 (approximately £85,000.00) in deposit, documentation and lithography fees.

In June 2008 Meydan nominated Honeywell to be appointed by Arabtec, though no formal agreement was made between Arabtec and Honeywell. Seven months later Meydan terminated the contract with Arabtec, and in June 2009 a contract was signed between Meydan and Honeywell.

Arbitration (DIAC Case 201/2010) was commenced by Honeywell against Meydan under the rules of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in July 2010 and was triggered by the fact that Honeywell had not been paid since December 2009 and had subsequently suspended work. Honeywell was seeking the sums it claimed were owed under the contract. Meydan did not nominate an arbitrator or participate in the proceedings but despite Meydan's lack of cooperation Honeywell proceeded with the tribunal to a hearing in February 2012. However, in January 2012 Meydan commenced a separate DIAC arbitration against Honeywell (DIAC Case 18/2012). Notwithstanding this new arbitration, DIAC Case 201/2010 proceeded and Honeywell was awarded just over AED 77 million (approximately £12.6 million).

Eager to seek ratification of the award in DIAC Case 201/2010, Honeywell commenced proceedings before the Dubai courts. Meydan opposed the application and argued that the award should be held void and/or invalid, asserting (with reference to an opinion from an English Queen's Counsel relating to DIAC...