In Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainy – Butterworths Law Direct 15.2.08 (previously reported in the April, May and October 2007 bulletins) the applicant company applied to set aside an order made without notice permitting the respondent to enforce as a judgment a New York Convention arbitration award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court of Moscow on the ground that recognition and enforcement would be contrary to public policy. It contended that the conduct of the arbitration and the subsequent Russian proceedings had been fraudulent, or at the least reprehensible or unconscionable. In particular, it alleged that relevant documents had been suppressed and misrepresentations had been made about the date of an insurance contract.

The Commercial Court held that it was no part of its function to decide whether the insurance arrangements were effective as a matter of Russian law. The applicant had not shown that the respondent had engaged in reprehensible or unconscionable conduct in an attempt to mislead the arbitral tribunal. The evidence which had been deployed before the court would not have altered the outcome. There was therefore no basis upon which the court could set aside the order of the judge permitting enforcement of the award.