In the highly complex and contentious case of Filatona
Trading Ltd and another v Navigator Equities Ltd and others
[2019] EWHC 173 (Comm), the English High Court dismissed an
attempted challenge to an LCIA award brought on the grounds of
jurisdiction (s.67 Arbitration Act 1996) and serious irregularity
(s.68 Arbitration Act 1996).
In particular, the Court held that an LCIA arbitral tribunal did
not exceed the scope of its powers in ordering relief that was not
available to an English court.
Background
The dispute arose under a shareholder agreement
(SHA) concerning land in central Moscow. Ms
Danilina and Mr Deripaska were named as parties to the SHA. Ms
Danilina's former partner, Mr Chernukhin, was not. Mr
Chernukhin's position was that Ms Danilina was acting as his
nominee or agent and that, consequently, he was the true party to
the SHA by virtue of being Ms Danilina's disclosed principal
and the beneficial owner of Ms Danilina's shares. Ms Danilina
and Mr
