Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 JULY 2018

Update On Illegality In International Arbitration: RBRG Trading v Sinocore International

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

Our earlier blog post discussed the role of arbitrators and counsel when allegations of illegality and corruption are made in the course of international arbitration

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Our earlier blog post discussed the role of arbitrators and counsel when allegations of illegality and corruption are made in the course of international arbitration. A recent case in the England and Wales Court of Appeal, RBRG Trading v Sinocore International1 ("RBRG Trading"), reinforced the high standard for challenging a New York Convention arbitration award and outlined principles to consider in determining whether an award can be enforced where issues of illegality in the underlying claim are raised.

Background

RBRG Trading involved a sale contract between Sinocore international ("Sinocore") and RBRG Trading ("RBRG"). The contract provided that payment would be made by a letter of credit and any disputes would be determined by CIETAC arbitration under Chinese law. On RBRG's instructions, Rabobank issued a letter of credit. The parties later amended the sale contract to include an inspection clause and Rabobank purported to issue an amendment to the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from