Find a Barrister

Find an Arbitrator

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
people

Contact

Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).

Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.

To contact our Singapore office, please contact our BD Director, Asia, Rachel Foxton. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.

London

20 Essex Street
London
WC2R 3AL

enquiries@twentyessex.com
t: +44 20 7842 1200
DX 0009 Lond/Chan Lane

Singapore

28 Maxwell Road
#02-03
Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120

singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230

Contact

Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).

Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.

To contact our Singapore office, please contact our BD Director, Asia, Rachel Foxton. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.

London

20 Essex Street
London
WC2R 3AL

enquiries@twentyessex.com
t: +44 20 7842 1200
DX 0009 Lond/Chan Lane

Singapore

28 Maxwell Road
#02-03
Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120

singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230

25/04/2019

English Court grants worldwide freezing order to aid enforcement of arbitration award, despite lack of connections with England

ArcelorMittal USA LLC v Essar Steel Limited and others [2019] EWHC 724 (Comm)

The Commercial Court has recently granted a worldwide freezing order (“WFO”) in aid of the enforcement of an arbitration award, even though the award was foreign, the Claimant and Defendant companies were foreign and there were no significant assets within the jurisdiction. In doing so the Court rejected a submission that it “should not become an international policeman”.

The Facts

ArcelorMittal USA LLC (“AMUSA”) obtained an award for payment of US$1.3billion by Essar Steel Limited (“Essar Steel”), following a dispute arising from an agreement for the supply of iron ore pellets. AMUSA is a Delaware company, whilst Essar Steel is a Mauritian company. The tribunal was seated in Minnesota.

AMUSA commenced proceedings in England and obtained permission, under s101 of the 1996 Arbitration Act, to enforce the arbitration award as a judgment of the High Court. It also obtained a WFO against Essar Steel.

The Court’s Reasoning in relation to the WFO

The Court concluded that there was a “solid risk of dissipation of assets” and that it was “just and convenient” to grant the WFO, despite the absence of factors connecting the case with England. It applied the principle that in cases of “international fraud” the English courts should be more willing to intervene. Two points in particular should be noted.

First, the Court held that “international fraud” is not limited to situations where the underlying claim is in deceit or related to the theft of assets, but extends to “serious wrongdoing comprising conduct on a large or repeated scale whereby a company, or the group of which it is a member, is acting in a manner prejudicial to its creditors, and in bad faith”. On the facts, “the attempted dissipation of Essar Steel’s US$1.5billion asset in the face of the commencement of arbitration proceedings” was sufficient in itself to warrant intervention under the international fraud principle.

Second, the Court was prepared to grant the WFO despite evidence that the Mauritian courts could in principle grant WFOs. The Court considered that the Mauritian courts “would not regard the WFO as offensive in some way” and also noted that this was not a case of conflict with any existing order of the Mauritian courts.

Significance

This judgment opens the door for parties seeking to enforce foreign arbitration awards to obtain WFOs from the English courts even where: (1) the case has little or no connection with England; (2) there is no substantive claim for fraud; and (3) the defendant’s home courts could in principle grant WFOs.

Relevant members
Sudhanshu Swaroop QC
Share