England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST
COMMERCIAL COURT (QBD)

IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

		Court No 8 7 Rolls Building Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL
		20 July 2018

1. MR JUSTICE TEARE: I grant the order on the basis first that the order is not in conflict with section 12 of the State Immunity Act which only deals with the manner in which a foreign government should be served. It has been held in this court that that section does not deal with the question whether it is appropriate to dispense with service. The court has jurisdiction to dispense with service, and I have concluded that it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances of this case. The arbitration claim is one to enforce an arbitration award by registering it as a judgment of this court and recognising it as such.
2. On the basis of the evidence to which I have been referred, it is clear that the State of Libya is aware of the award because it was represented by a law firm based in France in that arbitration. Further, it is clear from other matters to which I have been referred that the State of Libya is aware that the substantial arbitration award remains to be paid.
3. The difficulty of service in this case arises from the circumstance that if the claimant were to seek to serve the arbitration claim in the manner provided in the Act, there would be considerable difficulties arising out of the circumstance that there are at least two entities claiming to be the State of Libya at the present time.
4. The court has to balance the interests of the claimant to enforce the substantial award against the interest of the defendant to be made aware by a formal process of service of the steps being taken in this court. However it seems to me, weighing those interests in the balance, that it is fair and just to grant the order sought because otherwise the claimant would be unable to take the steps it wishes to take to enforce the award and would have to wait until such time as conditions in Libya become more normal.
5. I do not consider that making this order will in reality prejudice the interests of the State of Libya, because as I have said, the State of Libya must be aware of this award and of the claimant's interest in enforcing it.
6. Further, the claimant will take certain steps to bring this order to the attention of those who there is reason to believe can make the State of Libya aware of these proceedings.
7. I shall therefore make the order sought.