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

Learn More →

Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov and Ors

Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov and Ors 13 September 2005 Mann J Commercial Court [2005] EWHC 2484 (Ch) [2005] ArbLR 58 Arbitration proceedings--Interim measures--Evidence--Production of documents by third parties--Whether documents sought must be individually identified or identifiable (yes)--CPR Part 34--Arbitration Act 1996, ss 43 and 44 Documents to be produced by third parties In 2000 and 2003, TadAZ entered into barter contracts with Hydro Aluminum for the supply of alumina in exchange for aluminium metal. The agreements were said to have been negotiated and signed by former TadAZ director, Mr Ermatov. Various companies owned and controlled by Mr Nazarov supplied raw materials to TadAZ and from 1999, this business was carried on by a company called Ansol. Another company owned and controlled by a Mr Shushko, Ashton, was incorporated in 1997 for the purpose of obtaining raw materials from Western sources. After the incorporation of Ansol, Ashton ceased supplying raw materials and, instead, provided services including the negotiation of contracts for the financing of raw materials required by TadAZ, including the two barter contracts concluded with Hydro. Disputes arose under the contracts with Hydro and were referred to LCIA arbitration. Hydro sought to enforce the contracts. TadAZ resisted enforcement alleging that the contracts were part http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov and Ors

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

Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov and Ors

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

Abstract

13 September 2005 Mann J Commercial Court [2005] EWHC 2484 (Ch) [2005] ArbLR 58 Arbitration proceedings--Interim measures--Evidence--Production of documents by third parties--Whether documents sought must be individually identified or identifiable (yes)--CPR Part 34--Arbitration Act 1996, ss 43 and 44 Documents to be produced by third parties In 2000 and 2003, TadAZ entered into barter contracts with Hydro Aluminum for the supply of alumina in exchange for aluminium metal. The agreements were said to have been negotiated and signed by former TadAZ director, Mr Ermatov. Various companies owned and controlled by Mr Nazarov supplied raw materials to TadAZ and from 1999, this business was carried on by a company called Ansol. Another company owned and controlled by a Mr Shushko, Ashton, was incorporated in 1997 for the purpose of obtaining raw materials from Western sources. After the incorporation of Ansol, Ashton ceased supplying raw materials and, instead, provided services including the negotiation of contracts for the financing of raw materials required by TadAZ, including the two barter contracts concluded with Hydro. Disputes arose under the contracts with Hydro and were referred to LCIA arbitration. Hydro sought to enforce the contracts. TadAZ resisted enforcement alleging that the contracts were part

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/tajik-aluminium-plant-v-ermatov-and-ors-oDrei8MYcX
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2009
Subject
Judgments
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2005.1.857
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

13 September 2005 Mann J Commercial Court [2005] EWHC 2484 (Ch) [2005] ArbLR 58 Arbitration proceedings--Interim measures--Evidence--Production of documents by third parties--Whether documents sought must be individually identified or identifiable (yes)--CPR Part 34--Arbitration Act 1996, ss 43 and 44 Documents to be produced by third parties In 2000 and 2003, TadAZ entered into barter contracts with Hydro Aluminum for the supply of alumina in exchange for aluminium metal. The agreements were said to have been negotiated and signed by former TadAZ director, Mr Ermatov. Various companies owned and controlled by Mr Nazarov supplied raw materials to TadAZ and from 1999, this business was carried on by a company called Ansol. Another company owned and controlled by a Mr Shushko, Ashton, was incorporated in 1997 for the purpose of obtaining raw materials from Western sources. After the incorporation of Ansol, Ashton ceased supplying raw materials and, instead, provided services including the negotiation of contracts for the financing of raw materials required by TadAZ, including the two barter contracts concluded with Hydro. Disputes arose under the contracts with Hydro and were referred to LCIA arbitration. Hydro sought to enforce the contracts. TadAZ resisted enforcement alleging that the contracts were part

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.