Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc

Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc 18 October 2005 Clarke J Commercial Court [2005] EWHC 2309 [2005] ArbLR 34 Arbitration award--Challenge--Security for costs--Changed circumstances-- Parties agreeing amount of security for costs--Whether parties' agreement excluded additional security in the event of changed circumstances (yes)-- Arbitration Act 1996, s 70(6) Agreement on security for costs excluded additional security where circumstances changed Istil was a steel trader, whose predecessor bought steel from Karmet, a Kazak state enterprise. Karmet fell into financial difficulty. Kazakhstan insisted on advance delivery of raw materials from Istil's predecessor, Metalsrussia. Metalsrussia commenced proceedings in Paris against Kazakhstan which contested jurisdiction on the ground that it was not a party to the contracts, but that if it was, there was a binding arbitration agreement, alternatively, that it enjoyed immunity. Metalsrussia contended that there was no claim under the contracts, but only under separate undertakings given during the proceedings relating to the insolvency of Karmet. The Paris Tribunal de commerce and Court of Appeal rejected the contention that Kazakhstan was party to any arbitration agreement and declined jurisdiction on ground of sovereign immunity. Metalsrussia commenced arbitration proceedings seeking to recover advance payments and damages. In the course of the arbitration, Metalsrussia merged with its parent http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2005 (1) – Jan 1, 2005

Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2005 (1) – Jan 1, 2005

Abstract

18 October 2005 Clarke J Commercial Court [2005] EWHC 2309 [2005] ArbLR 34 Arbitration award--Challenge--Security for costs--Changed circumstances-- Parties agreeing amount of security for costs--Whether parties' agreement excluded additional security in the event of changed circumstances (yes)-- Arbitration Act 1996, s 70(6) Agreement on security for costs excluded additional security where circumstances changed Istil was a steel trader, whose predecessor bought steel from Karmet, a Kazak state enterprise. Karmet fell into financial difficulty. Kazakhstan insisted on advance delivery of raw materials from Istil's predecessor, Metalsrussia. Metalsrussia commenced proceedings in Paris against Kazakhstan which contested jurisdiction on the ground that it was not a party to the contracts, but that if it was, there was a binding arbitration agreement, alternatively, that it enjoyed immunity. Metalsrussia contended that there was no claim under the contracts, but only under separate undertakings given during the proceedings relating to the insolvency of Karmet. The Paris Tribunal de commerce and Court of Appeal rejected the contention that Kazakhstan was party to any arbitration agreement and declined jurisdiction on ground of sovereign immunity. Metalsrussia commenced arbitration proceedings seeking to recover advance payments and damages. In the course of the arbitration, Metalsrussia merged with its parent

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/kazakhstan-v-istil-group-inc-A3vzdGUerV
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2009
Subject
Judgments
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2005.1.469
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

18 October 2005 Clarke J Commercial Court [2005] EWHC 2309 [2005] ArbLR 34 Arbitration award--Challenge--Security for costs--Changed circumstances-- Parties agreeing amount of security for costs--Whether parties' agreement excluded additional security in the event of changed circumstances (yes)-- Arbitration Act 1996, s 70(6) Agreement on security for costs excluded additional security where circumstances changed Istil was a steel trader, whose predecessor bought steel from Karmet, a Kazak state enterprise. Karmet fell into financial difficulty. Kazakhstan insisted on advance delivery of raw materials from Istil's predecessor, Metalsrussia. Metalsrussia commenced proceedings in Paris against Kazakhstan which contested jurisdiction on the ground that it was not a party to the contracts, but that if it was, there was a binding arbitration agreement, alternatively, that it enjoyed immunity. Metalsrussia contended that there was no claim under the contracts, but only under separate undertakings given during the proceedings relating to the insolvency of Karmet. The Paris Tribunal de commerce and Court of Appeal rejected the contention that Kazakhstan was party to any arbitration agreement and declined jurisdiction on ground of sovereign immunity. Metalsrussia commenced arbitration proceedings seeking to recover advance payments and damages. In the course of the arbitration, Metalsrussia merged with its parent

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.